Journal des débats 1993-nov-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make his presentation. Mr Perruzza.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Speaker, I am before you and the rest of the chamber here today to essentially ask for your support to communicate to the new federal government in Ottawa that I think the Senate, in the development of this great country of ours called Canada, has indeed outlived its usefulness, if in fact it ever had any.

I would just simply like to start off by quoting from our Constitution. In fact, our Constitution has stated since Confederation that in Canada "there shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." So there are essentially three institutions that form the government of Canada.

We'll have to go into our history and our development a little bit to look at the rationales for setting up the Senate of Canada. If you go right back to over a century and a quarter ago, during the debate the reason for setting up the Senate was essentially to try to strike, in at least one of the chambers of government, some regional representation and some sharing of power between the more populous, wealthier provinces and some of the less populated, less wealthy provinces. In fact, one of our Fathers of Confederation -- we all know him well -- Sir John A. Macdonald, during this whole debate when they were going back and forth and trying to figure out how Canada was going to be governed, declared:

"There would be no use for an upper House if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the lower House. It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body."

Having quoted extensively, this was the reason for setting up the Senate in the way it was. Initially, it was set up with 72 members. Then, with the inclusion of some other provinces, the membership went up to 96, always of course with a regional appropriation, which gets to be quite cloudy and hazy as you track the development of the institution over time, then to 104, and finally and lately to 112, which is very interesting.

It's important to look at especially the last development. We all know when that happened and when that occurred. During the Mulroney years in government, the federal Conservative government wanted to introduce the GST. It being the kind of nasty, ill-conceived, bitter-biting, economy-ruining tax that it was and is, and since Mulroney and the Conservatives had an overwhelming majority in the lower House, the elected representative House of Commons, and the Liberals had the majority in the Upper House, which was then the Senate, the Liberal senators began to tinker with that whole process. They were considering possibly not passing or not consenting to this ill-conceived, ill-contrived, nasty, economy-ruining tax known as the GST.

What did he do? He said: "I'm going to take back the majority in the upper House. I'm going to use an unusual authority." Many scribes and many experts had earlier suggested that perhaps that authority didn't exist, and he said: "Absolutely not. They're thwarting or trying to thwart the elected representative authority of the lower House. I won't allow it. I believe I have the right not to allow it and therefore I shall ask the Queen to expand the numbers of the Senate, appoint a few Conservative people to the upper House and take back the majority so that the GST can and will proceed."

In fact, that's exactly what he did, and the number went to 112. Then all of a sudden, lo and behold, what happens is, and I believe these numbers are as current as you can get them, you have 54 Progressive Conservatives in the upper House, 52 Liberals, four independents, a Liberal Independent and a Reformer, totalling 112.

1010

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: And then we got the GST. So, in effect, what you have happening is -- the rationale for why the Senate was created -- that after almost 125 years it was about to flex its muscles and say: "Sir John A. Macdonald said we had some authority. We're going to exercise it for a change." What happens? Bang, they don't exercise it any more and there's essentially no change.

Throughout its history it's cost us a lot of money. Most senators are there pretty well their whole lives. They're political appointments, and you only need to look at the breakdown to see that. Since we've had only Conservative and Liberal governments federally, they're mostly all Progressive Conservatives or Liberals. There are very few others, if any at all. It seems to be the patronage plum of government.

So what happens and where are we now? We've tried on a number of occasions to reform the Senate and say it should have some authority. Some people say it should be elected. In fact, there have been a number of processes set up to try to figure out what we could do to make it regionally representative and to some degree accountable to the people of Canada, but what you have happening is that there's a political tussle. Every region and everyone seems to feel that during the reform exercise they should gain a little more authority. Not being able to gain more power through a reform process, what do you have happen? Essentially nothing. If nothing happens, you preserve the status quo. And what's the status quo? We have this elaborate institution with 112 members with staff and perks and all the other things that go with these kinds of positions. What does it do? It does essentially nothing.

Interjection: Could you spell that?

Mr Perruzza: It does nothing. My colleague asks, "How do you spell 'nothing'?" Most people out there know how to spell "nothing." They know what "nothing" means and what it does. What it does is cost us an awful lot of money to sustain.

This is why I'm before you and this chamber today to ask for your support, because we know what will soon happen. We have a new federal government. We have a federal Liberal government but the Conservatives have the majority in the Senate. So what will happen? I'll tell you what will happen. Prime Minister Chrétien is going to have to go out, find a few Liberals tucked away somewhere, probably people who have been bagmen for the party, and try to appoint them to the Senate to take back his majority. I say that is unfair and it should be done away with.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I actually don't welcome the opportunity to speak on this this morning, for one reason: I have been very critical over the years of this Legislature dealing with matters which are clearly outside its jurisdiction. I think it's a complete waste of time when members of any political party under any circumstances bring forward issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

On many occasions I go into secondary schools to speak to students and try to talk about the delineation of powers in the three levels of government, in some cases the four levels when you have two municipal levels of government. What happens is, the questions that get directed to me are often questions which have nothing to do with the provincial government.

I try to explain to the students that my views on federal issues or municipal issues are not the views that should count in terms of their evaluation of my position as a provincial member of Parliament. For instance, they'll ask, "What do you think of capital punishment?" because that is a matter that may be of some interest. But this Legislature has no power over the issue of capital punishment.

I think political representatives do a disservice to people they represent when they start talking about issues, particularly in this House and particularly in this hour, that have absolutely nothing to do with the Ontario Legislature. It's probably happened with members of all three parties in this House. I may even have, on some occasions in years gone by, discussed issues, not in this period but at other times, that are outside the jurisdiction of this House.

There are some that impact on the House; they are interprovincial. I do have some acceptance of that, that when there is an interprovincial component, it's important that this Legislature be dealing with the issue. But I think all of us must begin to reflect upon what we are doing out there in terms of dealing with the electorate. I try to deal as much as possible only in those issues within the responsibility of the provincial government.

I hear people who are critical of our government in Ontario on issues that have nothing to do with provincial government, and while it may not be in my partisan interests to do so, I try to explain to people that it is not Premier Rae's fault or the Ontario government's fault for an issue which is of a national nature or an exclusively federal nature. It gets down to even silly points, where people, when they don't have a sidewalk fixed, say, "Well, that must be Bob Rae's fault" or "That must be Brian Mulroney's fault" when he was the Prime Minister.

There may be reasons why we as opposition or we as individuals may be critical of a specific government, but I don't think it's fair and I don't think it serves our people well to deal with these issues in this House.

The member has a lot of interesting views on issues that are under provincial jurisdiction, and while I haven't always agreed with them, I've enjoyed hearing him speak in the House on those issues. That's why I'm disappointed today that we're off on a fishing trip with a federal issue that really does not reflect on matters before this House.

But the issue is before us, and I will address it very briefly, because during the Charlottetown agreement, there was some discussion where the Premier had to make pronouncements on whether there would be a Senate or not. I happen to be one who believes there's not a need for a second chamber in this country. There's not a need for a second chamber in this province -- we haven't had it for years and years and years -- and there's not a need for a second chamber in the federal system.

If I could look at a system that would entertain a second chamber with some justification, it might be a federal system. But I think in this country the House of Commons reflects the people of this country. I think we have provincial premiers who are very strong. There are only 10 provinces. There are two territories, soon to be three territories. These people can gather together and could have an awful lot of impact on what happens in this country.

Rather than having a Senate, I think we simply have to give more jurisdiction and perhaps a little more power and prestige to first ministers' conferences, where they speak for the provinces. In addition to this, within a cabinet there are people who speak for various parts of the country and within the various caucuses that are represented in the federal House of Commons and indeed as private citizens.

I don't think there's a necessity for a second House in 1993. The cost is always one factor. And as to the jurisdiction, sorry, I do not like appointed people having the ability to overrule elected people, and members of the Senate are appointed people. I'm not saying they've been totally useless, I'm not saying that they haven't served some purposes with their committees and some of the work they've done. They have done some reasonably good work. I just don't think there's a need for that second chamber.

When we discussed the Charlottetown agreement, there was a lot of consensus, a lot of people who buried hatchets. I will diverge just a bit to talk about us as political representatives, because I think some of the members served on a committee of the Legislature that dealt with that.

I listened to people across this country say: "You politicians are always fighting. We turn on the television set and you're arguing in the Legislature." In fact, I heard a couple of kids in the elevator the other day say, "Are we going in the place where those guys argue all the time?" That was an exact quote. Now, there are men and women in this House arguing, but that's the way they put it.

In this country, we've had a lot of clashes. The question period, on a daily basis, is very confrontational, and some of the other parts are confrontational. So for once the people got together from various political parties and said: "Let's bury the hatchet. Let's try to form a consensus. Let's go across the country and hear what people have to say on this issue."

1020

What happens? As soon as they come up with a consensus, some of the same people who asked, "Why are they always fighting and involved in confrontation, and why can't they work together?" say: "Oh, those politicians are all the same. There they are in bed together now. They're all the same, they're the élite."

On one hand they asked that the politicians work together and when they did work together they said, "You shouldn't work together." It just makes it a little more difficult to be representatives on that basis.

I'm opposed to an elected Senate as well as an appointed Senate because I don't believe there's a need for a second chamber. If you have to come to a compromise, one of the compromises I could not accept is a triple E Senate. I do not believe it should be effective, I do not believe it should be equal and elected, because I believe in representation by population. I do not believe, much as I have a lot of time and respect for the people of Prince Edward Island, for instance, that the people of Prince Edward Island should have as much say in the national policies as those who reside in provinces such as Ontario or Quebec, which have very large populations. We must take into consideration the points of view of those people, but there is no way we should be diverging from representation based on population. We do that enough now through our provincial boundaries to accommodate people in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas. I don't think it's necessary to do it.

By the way, I also disagreed with Premier Rae's quota system when he was talking about a Senate. He said you had to have three men and three women. I may want six women sitting in the Senate, if you had a Senate. I want to be able to vote for those six women or six men or any combination of either. I do not like it when you impose quotas, because it really means you're prohibiting women from having more than three seats of the six seats in Ontario. I think quotas are not good in that system. Let's elect the best people. I always vote, at a municipal level, for the people I believe will do the best job regardless of what the gender happens to be.

To go back to the issue at hand, I believe we should not have a second chamber. I believe the Senate should be abolished, but I want to remind members of this House that it cannot be done easily, because what the member is asking for when he asks that this issue be reopened is another constitutional round. I'm going to tell you, I don't want to go through another constitutional round when the unemployment rate in my riding is 16%. The last thing the people want to talk about is a Senate or anything else.

I will be voting in favour of this resolution. I don't think it should be before this House; nevertheless, as it is, I'll be voting in favour of the resolution, but I do it only in theory because I do not want them to reopen the constitutional can of worms.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I want to thank the member for bringing such an original resolution before this Legislature.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I think you did it earlier.

Mr Sterling: Oh, you must be referring to the resolution in the spring of 1992. I want to point out to the Speaker and the House that there is a difference between the two resolutions. My resolution said that in the opinion of this House the Senate of Canada should be abolished. I agree with the former speaker from St Catharines that this present resolution is not within the realm of the business of this House. The resolution I presented in the spring of 1992 was within the realm of the business of the House, and I --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Why don't you explain the difference?

Mr Sterling: I will explain the difference. Under our Constitution, it is a requirement that the federal government and all 10 provincial governments unanimously come to Senate reform proposals. In other words, if we are going to abolish the Senate of Canada, it would require the federal government and all provinces, including the province of Ontario, to say that shall be the way.

My resolution, put forward before this Legislature in 1992, was expressing the opinion of this Legislature towards that proposal. What the present resolution put forward by the member says is that the government of Canada should do this. Well, quite frankly, the government of Canada cannot do this because it doesn't have the power to do it.

The other part that is important, and I think it was highlighted by the member for St Catharines' speech, is that we should not in this Legislature, in my opinion, continue to say this other level of government should be doing this or should be doing that. Surely within our own realm or area of business -- and I believe the provincial Legislature probably has a larger number of topics and things we can discuss than any other level of government -- we can find some issues which are relevant to our own place and that we can have some real impact on. After all, I don't think the people out there really believe that to pass a resolution to tell somebody else to do something is a very powerful statement by this Legislature.

I do think, though, that the member, in bringing forward this resolution, is probably trying in some way to mirror the resolution which I brought forward and trying to gain an expression of the Legislature towards the Senate.

Some might think that because I brought forward a resolution a year and a half ago and things have changed slightly at the federal government, that there has been a change of government there, I might change my attitude towards the Senate. My attitude towards the Senate and my support for it has not changed; in other words, my lack of support for it has not changed.

I think what will be interesting to watch is the reaction of the Conservative-controlled Senate in Ottawa vis-à-vis the Liberal government. If one looks back in history at what the Senate has represented in our federal structure, before 1984, as I remember it in terms of the history of the Senate, the Senate was basically thought of by the public as a chamber of sober second thought. Legislation, after it was brought before the House of Commons, would go to the Senate and they would consider amendments to the bills. In spite of the fact that there were some political appointments, some people who were perhaps not less qualified, there are some very, very talented people who have been appointed to the Senate as well.

I thought that until 1984, the Senate didn't work badly. One of the reasons it didn't work badly is that it really never challenged the Commons in terms of what it wanted to do. Be it a government of Conservatives or Liberals over the past 100-and-some years preceding 1984, the Senate never stood up and said, "This shall not be the way the law will be." In my view, it was only when Allan MacEachen walked from the House of Commons to the Senate that the nature of the Senate changed. I think Allan MacEachen has destroyed the credibility of the Senate because what he did was politicize the Senate to a degree where he came in and he said --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Is he a Tory?

Mr Sterling: No, he's a Liberal. He was a former Liberal House leader and a former Liberal Finance minister; a very powerful politician, a very skilled politician. But when he went to the Senate, I think he forgot that he was changing his role as an elected MP to become an appointed senator. I think what he did, he did from 1984 on, and his Liberal senators who were there began to assume they had the same mandate as an elected member of the House of Commons had. So when something came in front of them from the Conservative-controlled Commons which they didn't like, they started to act like elected politicians and thought they had the mandate, particularly on very unpopular programs and legislation, like the GST, like free trade, which generated a lot of debate in the House of Commons and in this country.

I admit there were a lot of people who were against both of those things. Who is for a tax, whether you call it a GST or any other tax? The Senate took it upon itself to be elected people who said to the other elected people, "You can't do this to the people of Canada," and they had no right to say no.

1030

I want to tell you that I hope that if the Senate is not abolished -- I don't think it will be, for the reasons the member for St Catharines identified. I don't think anybody wants to go back into constitutional talks at this time. I think people are still exhausted from the last constitutional talks. I don't think the whole idea of the Senate abolishing the Senate is on the table for discussion, probably for another five or 10 years. We're going to see a Conservative-controlled Senate and a Liberal-controlled House of Commons, and I only hope the Conservative senators do not hold up legislation from the majority Liberal government of the House of Commons, as was experienced in reverse over the last 10 years by the Mulroney government in Ottawa.

I don't care how unpopular is whatever the Liberal government should bring forward. I do not believe a Conservative-controlled Senate has the right to hold up legislation unduly or turn back legislation from the Liberal-controlled House of Commons of Canada. The Liberal government is the elected government of the people of Canada and I don't believe the Conservative senators have the right to say, "No" or to say "You can't have this for a lengthy, lengthy period of time."

I damn the former Liberal senators who turned back and turned this chamber, from being perceived by the public as a chamber of sober second thought, into another political organ, because they didn't have that right, they have never had that right, and even though constitutionally they had been given those powers, they have never been exercised, in the prudence of former Senates that have sat in this country for 100, 120 and 125 years.

I want to say first of all that it's unfortunate that the wording of this resolution is inaccurate, but I take the thrust of the member's resolution. This member supported my resolution some year and a half ago in this Legislature, which I appreciate, and I think the thrust in the resolution should be supported as well.

Mr Mammoliti: I want to thank the member for Downsview for giving me the opportunity to speak on this particular resolution. I agree with the resolution, and that isn't a secret. I certainly spoke out publicly on this issue during the debates a year and a half ago, roughly, and I continue speaking out.

I can't understand, however, some of the comments that have been made today in this Legislature. The Liberals who responded to the member for Downsview's resolution tell us, and the member for St Catharines from the Liberal Party tells us, that it has nothing to do with this House, the provincial House. I don't agree with that statement and I can't understand, quite frankly, why he makes that statement. How could he possibly say that the voice of Ontarians doesn't have anything to do with commenting on this particular resolution?

What he's saying is that it doesn't belong in this Legislature and that we shouldn't be standing up and speaking about this, that in his words it's a waste of time.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): He's right.

Mr Mammoliti: I hear heckling from the Conservatives saying he's right. I don't agree with that statement. I don't agree that he's right. I think he's wrong. I think we are the voice for Ontarians, I think it belongs in this Legislature and I can't understand his logic.

How can he possibly say it doesn't belong in this Legislature when we're spending approximately $45 million a year to run the Senate, and at the same time that we're spending this money, the federal government is cutting the provincial transfer payments and at this particular time owes us approximately $5 billion? How could this gentleman from St Catharines, from the Liberal Party, stand up and say it doesn't belong in this House?

Mr Callahan: Are you being partisan?

Mr Mammoliti: No. I hear heckling from the Liberals. I'm not being partisan; I'm being honest. I'm sharing my feelings with you, as the member for St Catharines shared earlier. I respect the fact that he told us how he feels, but he's wrong. He's wrong, and you tell the taxpayers of this province that it doesn't belong in this particular House and you know exactly what they'll tell you.

For the Conservatives, on the other hand, of course the member for Carleton stands up and he doesn't believe the Senate should hold up the Liberal agenda. That's what he said. He doesn't believe the Senate should hold up any of the new Liberal government's agenda. So let me ask the question: What do they do then? What's their responsibility? What's their responsibility at the federal level and what do they do? Do they just rubber-stamp anything that comes in front of them? If that's the case, I believe even more that this particular resolution belongs in this House.

We need to send a message to our federal counterparts and that message has to be: "You're not doing anything. You have no responsibilities. Abolish the Senate. Save the $45 million a year and put it towards the debt." I didn't hear that in the federal election that just took place. I didn't hear anybody say, "Let's take that $45 million and put it towards the debt."

Mr Callahan: Didn't Audrey say that?

Mr Mammoliti: Except Audrey McLaughlin, the New Democratic leader. She is the only person who came out publicly and said, "Abolish the Senate."

Mr Callahan: She did not.

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, I hear heckling again from the Liberals saying, "She did not." I'm assuming that perhaps Mr Chrétien said, "Let's get rid of the Senate," as well, and if that's the case, even more at this particular time I would say to the members across, to the Liberal Party, make a phone call to your leader, then, and have him abolish the Senate, have him start the process.

The argument comes out again that it's not particularly the right time to get into this debate at the federal level. To give the Liberals credit, I would say they're right in terms of jobs. People want jobs. They don't want the constitutional debate to come forward at this particular time. However, and much as I agree with that comment, that doesn't mean this Legislature can't send the message, that doesn't mean this House should not send the message.

For the people in this place who stand up and say it's not our responsibility, give your heads a shake and explain that to your constituents. Explain to your constituents the role the Senate plays at the federal level. Explain to them that you've stood up here and said, "It's not my responsibility." Oh, give your heads a shake and find out what your constituents actually believe and actually want you to do as members.

1040

Mr Callahan: I rise to repeat, probably, the same speech I made when the member for Carleton brought this matter before the Legislature.

I think people are fed up with being overgoverned. We've got regional government; we've got school boards that consist of 20 and 30 and 40 people; we've got area municipalities; we've got federal governments; we've got provincial governments. It's no wonder this country has a deficit. If I had to support that many relatives in my family, I'd probably have a deficit too.

I want to say that it demonstrates and we're seeing this morning the true indicia of how senseless it is to have these Thursday morning meetings. There is absolutely nothing that will be accomplished by any of them.

Mr Mammoliti: Here we go again: "It's not our responsibility."

Mr Callahan: I'm telling you the way I feel. This Legislature badly requires reform. We sit here on Thursday mornings from 10 to 12, and I don't know what the cost of it is, but it's incredible: Certain bills are passed, initiatives are brought forward by private members and they never get beyond the bellows of the government leader's desk.

The present occupant of the Speaker's chair brought in an excellent bill on photos for health cards. Where did that go? No place. The Ministry of Health was in favour of it. They've never seen the light of day. We don't even know what the government's doing these days with the health cards.

I suggest to you that all this debate that we do on Thursday mornings is just an expense the public can do without, thank you, just like they can do perhaps without the Senate. Perhaps they can do without regional government; perhaps they can do with smaller school boards. We burden the taxpayers with all these costs of unnecessary bodies.

Getting back to the message at hand, we've already sent the message to Ottawa. It was sent when the member for Carleton brought a motion in that regard and I spoke on that.

I should perhaps take this opportunity to apologize to those people who called me up afterwards and said that they were not all political hacks and that they were not all useless people. There are a lot of people in the Senate who are very intelligent, hardworking people but it still doesn't justify it to me. I've never been in favour of a body that is not accountable to the electorate. There's an adage that non-elected people with power are dangerous, so I suggest that the Senate, if it's going to have any existence whatsoever -- maybe it's necessary; maybe it will be in expanding Canada to provide some type of proportional representation -- should be elected. They should certainly not be collecting moneys from the government of Canada, from the taxpayers of this country, if they're not elected and they're not accountable to the people.

I think this motion by the member for Downsview is sour grapes. If you look at the present situation in Ottawa, with only a pair of Tories in the Conservative House of Commons, they weren't going to be given any money for research or anything else. They got help from the majority in the Senate because they have all this research money to help out the couple of Tories who are in the House. The New Democratic Party, because it has no senators, is not going to get any money. They don't have any research money, and of course they didn't do that well in the last federal election. So the nature of this perhaps has something to do with sour grapes.

When one looks at the constitutional debates that went on in this country about the abolition of the Senate, I don't think anybody wants to go back to that, because right now the major thing is the economy of this country: Get people back to work. Get them retrained so they can get into jobs that perhaps have become more futuristic.

I suggest that standing here and debating an issue such as the abolition of the Senate, although many of us could easily say, "Sure, abolish it," is like belling the cat -- the mice might want the cat belled but the question is, who's going to bell the cat? That's precisely what's going on here.

The fact that we say the Senate should be abolished: Do you think Ottawa is going to turn around tomorrow morning and abolish the Senate? Number one, they can't do it, the member for Downsview should know, because it has to be done, as my friend from Carleton said, under the Constitution by a certain procedure. Mr Chrétien, as Prime Minister, does not have absolute power, nor would he use it if he had it, but he can't just abolish the Senate by clicking his fingers.

I suggest to the member for Downsview that this is an interesting motion and it's been an interesting exercise in debating, but apart from that, it's not much more. I suggest again, in closing, that perhaps we should look at the reform of this place to the extent that the government would accept more initiatives, more bills from private members, and make the hour that we spend here in the morning at the expense of the taxpayers of Ontario meaningful, so that the people of this province would get more for their taxes.

You tell your House leader that initiatives that are brought forward here are brought forward by people who care about them and want to see them passed.

Mr McLean: I want to take a few minutes this morning just to comment briefly on this resolution. The resolution reads: "That, in the opinion of this House, this Parliament should call upon the new federal government to abolish the Senate of Canada."

There's not much point in wasting a lot of time debating this resolution. My colleague the member for Carleton brought in the resolution on July 23, 1992, and this Legislature voted overwhelmingly in favour of that resolution which clearly and concisely called for the Senate of Canada to be abolished. The members here overwhelmingly supported that. Why are we debating another resolution today along the same lines?

I would say that the member for Downsview is wasting the time of this Legislature on this issue. The time could be better spent on cleaning up the mess of his government and colleagues as they fumble and they bumble their way through this process here trying to govern the province.

I understand another closure motion will be coming in today. During the election campaign in 1990 the Premier made all kinds of promises. He talked about the Agenda for People, which was stacked with promises. How many of those promises have been fulfilled when we look at the insurance, we look at what he was going to do with regard to the issue surrounding loans to farmers, to the small businesses? What has he done up until yesterday? He made some announcement with regard to that.

I'm not the first one to say that this resolution is certainly a waste of time. There are issues out there that I read about: the teachers' strikes that have taken place in this province. Why are we not debating this hour in this Legislature about how we could have better legislation and change so that those children would be back in school?

We look at the issue with regard to the Consumer and Commercial Relations fees which my leader mentioned here the other day and the great percentage increases that are affecting the people across the province, the taxpayers. Why are we not debating something like that?

We look at the government debt, the bond agency that announced yesterday the lowering of the credit rating. Why are we not discussing how that could be changed so that the Finance minister could rejuggle his books in order to restructure the way they spend money in government?

The other major issue in this province is Ontario Hydro. Why are we not discussing more about Ontario Hydro, the Bruce plant that they were trying to close or indicated that they were not going to retube, the amount of jobs that are up there?

Today I read in the paper where the Premier has even written a letter in the Toronto Star: "NDP has had to consider all of Ontario in making decisions in hard times." When I read that article, it is an election item on the Premier's agenda now to try and get re-elected in 1995. I cannot anticipate how the Premier could even think of getting re-elected on the promises that he has broken, on the changes that he has made in this province with regard to his friends in labour, how they banged at the doors here yesterday, trying to get in.

Now this member brings a resolution forward today with regard to asking the new federal government to abolish the Senate of Canada. That issue has been dealt with and the member for St Catharines was saying here this morning it's redundant. The member for Carleton brought that in last year and it was passed.

Why aren't we talking about the new tobacco legislation here? Why are we not talking about the issues that are on the minds of the people, the people who are out there who haven't got a job, the people who are out there who for the first time have to go on welfare, the first time they have to go for assistance. There are so many issues that we should be debating instead of wasting our time on a resolution talking about what the federal government should do.

1050

This is a government in opposition. This is a government that has not got the ideas to put forward, to make sound judgements based on what the people of this province want. They still want to criticize somebody else. If it's not the GST, it's the Senate. If it's not the Senate, it will be something else. It's strictly a government in opposition.

We will deal with some other issues such as the county bill next week.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm happy to be supporting Mr Perruzza's resolution and say that it is a very simple resolution, not complicated by excessive or unnecessary verbiage, quite clear, quite simple.

As to what the Liberals have said about this bill, two of them have said this bill is beyond the jurisdiction of the province, that we should not be dealing with it. They spent several minutes saying why it is beyond our jurisdiction and spent four or five or 10 minutes speaking to the substance of this motion. So quite clearly they recognize that it is within the jurisdiction of this province to deal with such an issue.

The Tories say through Mr McLean: "Mr Sterling has already dealt with this motion. It's a Tory motion. Mr Perruzza supported it, I supported it and others supported it." So what he's saying is that once the Tories have dealt with it, we don't need to deal with it again, because they dealt with it.

What I say to Mr McLean is that this issue needs to be debated and redebated. It has been debated since the 1920s and it probably will continue to be debated. We need to influence the federal government to take action on this, and it is within the jurisdiction of this province to deal with this matter.

He knows -- Mr Sterling understood it -- that in order to change the Senate, you need a constitutional amendment. In order to get that amendment, you need provincial support, or not, to do that. Quite clearly we as a province are involved whether we like it or not. So we're debating the substance of the debate, and to that I say we need to abolish the Senate.

But I want to say, before I get into some of the comments about this, that both the Liberals and the Tories say the people of Canada do not want yet another constitutional discussion. To that I argue that at some point in the very near future, we, the people of Ontario and the rest of Canada, need to deal with the constitutional discussion again. Reform needs to happen, because it won't go away.

We need to deal with the fact that the territories want to become provinces. They are not going to disappear. They want provincehood and they want constitutional reform. Aboriginal people want constitutional reform. We need constitutional reform for aboriginal people, and they will not disappear.

The issue of the Senate will come back, either elected or the abolishment of it. It will come back because the people of Ontario want to deal with the Senate. Unlike the opinion of Mr McLean, who says nobody wants to talk about it, the people of Ontario are talking about it.

The whole issue of provincial powers comes back, and it comes back over and over again. The provinces want reform on provincial powers. It comes through constitutional reform. We also need to deal with the issues that have concerned Quebec because they affect the unity of this country.

They argue we can't talk about this, that the people don't want it. Well, I tell the members who say this that whether they like it or not, these issues need to be dealt with, because they affect the economy of this country, they affect relations of provinces in this country, and when that happens, it affects us as a country. They'll have to deal with it whether they like it or not. On this score, I say we will have to deal with constitutional reform.

On the whole issue of the present system of the Senate, the present system is an abysmal failure. It doesn't work. It's pork-barrelling, and everybody knows it. Trudeau did it. Then Mulroney said, "I'll fix it," and he did. He appointed Tories. That's how he fixed the problem of the Senate. It is an illegitimate way to put people in the Senate. It is unacceptable and it is abhorrent to the people of Ontario and to Canada. The present system doesn't work.

As to an elected system, I argue it would be a better system to elect senators because they at least would be more accountable. They would be more equal, and I accept a counterbalance. In the House they're elected by population, representation by population; in the Senate you'd have an equal Senate based on provinces. I can accept that counterbalance. It's not a big problem for me.

Equal, yes, elected, yes, but when it comes to the issue of effective, if the Senate doesn't have the power to be able to bring the government down, then why do we need a Senate? Yes, they would be more equal, yes, they would be more accountable, but if it doesn't have the full powers to be effective, why do we need it?

The final point about this is that we don't need a Senate, not in its present form, not in an elected form, because either of the two systems would be ineffective and wrong. The conclusion one comes to, quite simply, is let us abolish the Senate and let the Legislature make this statement again and again and again.

When members have an opinion to make, want to bring forth a resolution, it's a good resolution to debate because the people of Ontario want to debate and want to deal with this. I'm happy to stand here today to support this resolution. It's a good resolution, simple, and I think we should all be supporting it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I appreciate the couple of minutes or so that my colleagues have allowed me to speak to this issue, and I must say that I'm not here to debate about why this is happening, why that is happening. I'm here to bring what I heard during the federal election.

I went from here and attended all the all-candidates meetings in the recent federal election. One of the burning questions that came up over and over again to all the candidates there was, how do you stand about the abolition of the Senate? The very asking of the question caused pandemonium in every meeting I went to. People clapped and they would not sit down. They clapped and applauded.

Finally, all these candidates got to their feet, including the Liberals and the Conservatives, and said: "Yes, you know, you're right. We should abolish the Senate." These mealy-mouthed creatures who stack the Senate with their appointments are sickening to the people. Every time the Conservatives get out, they post their friends into the Senate. They get $100,000, they never go near the place, they get expenses up to their ears, and it's the perks. It's a little pension plan that they get in addition to something else.

I heard the member for Brampton this morning on his high horse, and it's wonderful when you're on the top of the pile to talk about how bad the NDP is, but the NDP has never put anybody in the Senate. I can tell you that Turner and Trudeau filling the Senate up with all their buddies is so -- I mustn't say the word here but the public hates it. They cannot stomach this patronage and what's going on in the Senate.

As I speak for the people of Durham East, I say to you, Mr Speaker, that without exception they tell me we must abolish the Senate, immediately if not last week. People here have said: "This is nothing to do with us. Why are you wasting time?" I don't consider it a waste of time at all to stand in my place this morning and tell the folks here what the people in Durham East think about the Senate. That's not a waste of time, not at all. They despise this organization, and I say, as the clock winds down to one second and then none, we should do away with the Senate right this week.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Perruzza: Just very quickly to wrap up, I found this morning really interesting. My Liberal and Conservative friends -- actually the two Liberals who spoke to this immediately left the House after having said their piece. They come in here and say, "We shouldn't be talking about this," but boy, they came in this morning, and they rarely every do, and did they say a few things about this. And my Conservative friends, boy, did they do the same thing. They had the courage to stay. They're still here and they're listening intently, and I know they're listening intently.

1100

Mr Speaker, what's within our jurisdiction? Is free trade within our jurisdiction? You know and I know and most people here know that it's not within our jurisdiction, but boy, does it affect Ontario and, boy, I'd like to see a Liberal or a Conservative go back to their communities and say, "I'm not going to go to Queen's Park and talk about free trade, no way, no how, no sirree." I can tell you right darned quick that, boy, would they get the boot. They'd get the boot so far they could take their Florida holiday early. They could take their pension, they could take their severance pay and they could go to Florida for six months, because they wouldn't be coming back to this place, I'll tell you that right now.

Should we be talking about NAFTA and free trade with Mexico? Boy, I tell you, if a Liberal or a Conservative came to this chamber and said, "No, I'm not going to talk about that," would they be able to take their holiday early too. I say to them, keep sinking money in a dud. The Senate is a dud.

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: My Conservative friend says, "It's the chamber of sober second thought." Well, I can't vouch for the sober, I don't know if they're sober, but I can tell you something: They're never there. The majority of them are never there. There's a handful at best any time they're to consider anything that's sober.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time for the first ballot item has expired.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Sullivan moved private member's notice of motion number 29:

That, in the opinion of this House, given that the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute have provided exemplary service to cancer patients in Ontario, but that these institutions face major capital and operating deficiencies; and that the number of new patients requiring timely treatment is expected to reach 60,000 per year by the year 2000 at the same time as hundreds of thousands of patients need continuing care through a cooperative, coordinated system developed on a regional basis; and that a comprehensive system integrating research, education and patient services will enhance the provision of cancer treatment in the province; and that the 1985 Provincial Role Study of Cancer Services in Ontario prepared for the OCTRF and the OCI recommended the establishment of an Ontario cancer agency and that those institutions accepted that recommendation in principle; this House recommends that the government of Ontario should introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to establish an Ontario cancer agency which will merge the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute into one unified organization under a single board, to provide a comprehensive cancer control program for Ontario through a comprehensive cancer centre in each region, and to provide administrative and functional coordination of all resources for cancer control in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I want to start my remarks by indicating to the House that this resolution is based on my belief that we need a new paradigm in the development of a health care strategy today and, as part of that, a rational strategy and vehicle for planning an integrated cancer control system.

The evolution of cancer care in Ontario has been a long one with significant steps being taken in the early 1930s with the establishment of the Cody commission and its recommendations that the new radiation technologies which were being found effective in cancer care be concentrated in regional clinics.

These centralized regional services provided the basis for what is known today as our cancer system and were able to include a critical mass that attracted expertise in cancer care specialists, a logical approach to equipment acquisition and strong research programs which are integral to cancer care.

Fifty years ago the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation was established to coordinate a comprehensive program of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, research and education and to be responsible for the funding and direction of regional cancer care centres. The eight centres which have evolved since that time provide multidisciplinary care onsite, with community outreach through cancer clinics located in community hospitals.

Later, the Ontario Cancer Institute was established, linking the major teaching hospitals in Toronto with the academic component of the University of Toronto medical school and the provincial hospital tertiary referral centre, the Princess Margaret Hospital.

The OCTRF and the OCI form the formal cancer system in Ontario. Only they may provide radiotherapy treatments that are required by 50% of Ontario's cancer patients. The remaining portion of patients who may require other treatment such as surgery or chemotherapy may be treated through the OCI-OCTRF system, through community hospitals or through clinics offered by medical oncologists. Haematologists, internal medical specialists, surgeons and other providers all work both inside and outside the formal cancer system.

Forty years ago, legislation recognized the OCI and the OCTRF as separate but affiliated organizations. Both are charged with responsibilities for research, diagnosis and treatment and both provide comparable patient services in community outreach. The OCI has a singular international reputation in research and has established a particular role in providing specialty education for those who work in cancer care in various specialties, such as radiation, pathology, surgical and medical oncology, biophysics and radiation biology. The significance of their role is not just for Ontario but for the country as a whole.

Like the Princess Margaret Hospital, the regional centres offer comprehensive cancer care, including treatment and education with clinical and basic research in a multidisciplinary environment, and all regional centres are now allied with a health sciences centre.

Outside the formal system, though, every public hospital in Ontario offers care to cancer patients, and hospital services which are involved in cancer care include such things as physiotherapy, laboratory services, diagnostic imaging, surgical services, educational services, social work, pastoral care and many others.

Medical schools and teaching hospitals have a separate role in determining numbers of trainees in various specialty fields.

It is a fragmented system, and over they years there have been intense cycles of crises when facilities and services, equipment and personnel have not been in place to provide timely, appropriate and effective care to people who need it.

As well, the evaluation of care provided has been spotty, and I say that is particularly true outside the formal system. Human resources planning has been deficient as well in ensuring that we are graduating those health care providers with the skills and training needed in this highly specialized area. That deficiency, I point out, extends well beyond the field of radiology and beyond the medical specialties themselves.

In bringing this resolution to the House, I think it's useful to review where we are today and where we want to be tomorrow. I don't think anyone would disagree that where we want to be is with a fully functioning, integrated and comprehensive cancer control system which includes effective and efficient treatment as close to the patient's home as possible.

But a cancer control strategy, I point out, goes beyond that. A cancer control strategy must include a continuum of appropriate care tailored to the individual needs of the patient, including prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, home care and palliation.

It must incorporate research and education and the means and the flexibility to take advantage of that research and apply it to a clinical setting, no matter what the clinical setting. It must include up-to-date care management systems providing clinical and other data and it must allow for continuing evaluation and accountability.

An appropriate cancer control strategy must include long-term human resources planning and planning for capital development in a multi-year framework that takes account of both new and replacement capital needs. Both planning and delivery must be collaborative and multidisciplinary and must integrate the formal system with services provided and needed outside of that system.

1110

Those broad goals are not new. They have been identified in part or in total by other studies, by professional bodies and by consumer groups, but a particularly important 1985 study underlined those needs. The Provincial Role Study of Cancer Services in Ontario was commissioned jointly by the OCTRF and the OCI. In this resolution today, I am reflecting one of the major recommendations of that report which continues to be a valid one. That recommendation is to develop a fully comprehensive cancer control program established across the province and establish a unified cancer agency. The specific recommendation says:

"The new organization should preserve the existing basis of cancer control delivery. It should be given the mandate to coordinate all cancer care programming throughout the health care system in the province, respecting the jurisdictional rights and obligations of existing hospitals, universities and other agencies with special interests in cancer control. It should also reaffirm the existing mandate currently held by the OCTRF-OCI to deliver programs through existing cancer centres and the OCI."

In their commentary, the authors note:

"Future requirements will only increase the need for a coordinated oncologic program in the province.... A province-wide system based on the OCTRF and the OCI, together with a coordinated network of interested and committed physicians in the community, would be the best way to disseminate...new knowledge. A coordinated system would also encourage establishing and maintaining adequate standards, treatment effectiveness and efficiency in a high-cost environment."

My own view is that the 1985 report recommendations are key, identifying as they do priorities and components needed in a comprehensive cancer program. They talk to the role of community physicians whose function is pivotal, and particularly so, by example, when drugs with increasing toxicity to patient and provider alike are used in cancer care. Appropriate utilization evaluation, prescribing guidelines and coordinated educational programs are needed to ensure that the physician is working with maximum and up-to-date information and that a consistent auditing system is in place across the province.

Oncological nurses, surgical oncologists, laboratory physicians and others need to be more integrated into a cancer network as part of a multidisciplinary team. Increasing needs for palliation must be included in a cancer control strategy, as should paediatric oncology. Care management information systems need enhancing and research needs a firm and stable funding base.

The psychological and social needs of the patient are increasingly important concerns in a continuum of care, and too often they are left out of our planning.

I was pleased yesterday to note at our cancer task force hearings at the Princess Margaret Hospital that Dr Tom Dickson, president of the Ontario Medical Association, endorsed the principle of a unified cancer control agency which would promote the highest quality of care and utilize the expertise, leadership and standards of the OCI-OCTRF. Like many others, his gauge was the need for consistent principles for referral, diagnosis, assessment, treatment and follow-up of all patients and for a cancer control program that ensures equal, standardized care.

This resolution is not about a specific structure. That should and must be further discussed, and mutual agreements made. Rather, it is about an appropriate vehicle for the development of an appropriate cancer control strategy and program that integrate the work of the formal system with the work that takes part outside of that system.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mrs Sullivan's private member's resolution is based on discussion contained within the 1985 Provincial Role Study of Cancer Services prepared for the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute. Part of the report's discussion focuses on the establishment of an Ontario cancer agency to merge the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute into one unified organization under one board.

Ironically, it was a Liberal government which sat on this report while in government. The PC Party, my caucus colleagues and I are firmly in favour of better management and coordination of cancer services in Ontario. Over the last few months we have heard endless stories of staff shortages, long waiting lists and ailing patients with nowhere to turn. We've heard these stories from our constituents, health providers and through the media.

There is a cancer crisis in the province of Ontario -- I think there is no doubt of that now -- and I want to talk for a moment about what the NDP government's response has been. Cancer services are inadequate and have not been managed effectively by the government. The leader of the Ontario PC Party, Mike Harris, brought to the attention of this Legislature the case of an American patient jumping the queue at a London, Ontario, treatment centre. Judy Thompson, a Kitchener resident who waited three months for radiotherapy, met a Port Huron, Michigan, woman at the London Regional Cancer Centre who told her that she had been cleared for similar treatment in just one week.

The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has estimated that Ontario needs 104 more radiation therapists. Currently only 321 in total are employed in the province. The Minister of Health indicated that she has put out a worldwide call to radiation oncologists and therapists to come to Ontario to practise. We have heard that of the 11 radiation oncologists who graduated in June 1993, only four have chosen to stay in Ontario to practise.

If I had more time I would go into the reasons health care providers and physicians are actually discouraged by the policies of this government from practising here in Ontario. Even though we spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to educate those people in Ontario, they find it, in most cases, better to leave.

The ministry response to huge waiting lists for cancer services was six regional round tables focusing on how to involve consumers in the planning process. Talk about ridiculous. We have people dying on waiting lists and the ministry's response focuses on how to make politically correct cancer decisions.

What is the PCs' position with respect to today's resolution? I think it goes without saying that my caucus firmly supports any well-researched coordination and amalgamation efforts which would lead to better services for patients requiring cancer services. If the proposed amalgamation, that is, the one proposed in today's resolution, of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute can be shown to result in better services for patients, I would support the resolution both in principle and in fact.

What we must not lose sight of, however, in our discussions today is how cancer services can be best coordinated in the province. It is a fact that the Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation really only represent about 22% of the total cancer system in the province. Even with the proposed merger, the bulk of cancer services, 78% to be exact, are left unaccounted for. A strong case can be made to deal first with the 78% of cancer services outside of the Ontario Cancer Institute and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.

By agreeing in principle to this resolution, I am concerned that the adoption of this resolution by the government may be perceived as the provincial response to the cancer needs of the future. The PC caucus believes that a provincial cancer strategy must go beyond this Liberal Party resolution. A provincial cancer strategy must cover 100% of cancer services across the province, and it is our feeling that province-wide coordination of cancer services is indeed long overdue.

The Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation are operating at full capacity and have waiting lists. Unlike other parts of the health care world, where underutilized resources are being closed or otherwise rationalized, both Princess Margaret and the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation are fully utilized.

It is my feeling that a merger between OCI, PMH and OCTRF should be done in conjunction with province-wide cancer service coordination. At this point in time, it should be noted that the Princess Margaret Hospital is not in favour of such a merger. While Princess Margaret has expressed a willingness to participate in a review of cancer services, it does not believe that extensive financial benefits would result from a merger. In my view, financial benefits and better service delivery must be proven before a merger is even contemplated by the province.

1120

With respect to the proposal of a single board, five of the Ontario Cancer Institute's board members are Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation appointees and the others represent some other institutions, so there is already a tight organizational representation.

On the downside of a government-endorsed merger proposal from an Ontario Cancer Institute perspective is the problem of holding the capital campaign together. The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation is 100% funded, while the Ontario Cancer Institute is not; in fact, the Ontario Cancer Institute is currently trying to raise some $50 million. We have been advised by the Ontario Cancer Institute that the merger proposal, or the adoption of this resolution this morning, has the potential to seriously damage its fund-raising campaign.

In summary, we believe it is high time for a province-wide cancer strategy. We support the principle of greater collaboration, with the aim of higher-quality, more cost-effective service for the entire cancer care sector. We do not believe, based on concerns brought to our attention by the Ontario Cancer Institute, that a merger between the Ontario Cancer Institute and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation will result in province-wide coordination of cancer services and cost savings. For these reasons, and others I've outlined in the course of my remarks, I will not be supporting the Liberal resolution.

In closing, though, I would like to commend the member for Halton Centre for the work she has done in this area, and I would very sincerely like to recognize that her motion was put forward this morning with the very best of intentions.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I think it's fair to say that all members of this House and from all sides of this House recognize, both from a personal aspect and from a general health aspect, the importance of developing a cancer strategy that is comprehensive and that deals with the whole issue of cancer treatment and cancer prevention. I think all of us have personally been affected by those of our family and our friends who've been lost to this dread disease, and also we've been impressed by the number of our family and friends who have conquered this disease. I think we need to do everything we can to have the most effective program in treatment and the most effective prevention programs we can have.

First of all, I'd like to indicate that our government is working on a comprehensive cancer strategy. We've been involved ever since we began in government in consultations to put the final touches to a provincial cancer strategy that would encompass the full continuum of cancer care; that is, from tertiary care treatment, from community care, to palliative care to prevention. I think it's important that remain a high priority.

With respect to the question of shortages, which were referred to by the critic for the third party, I believe we have responded. We as a government have recognized the need for more radiation oncologists, recognized the need for more radiation technicians, recognized the need for more radiation machines, and we have responded. Our government has responded with increased funding and increased efforts to meet this need. We've also responded in establishing the province-wide referral system to try to ensure that people get timely treatment.

With respect to the specific aspect of this motion, of the merger of the OCTRF and the OCI, I know at one time it was considered an acceptable proposal by both of these institutions, but, as indicated by my friend the member for Simcoe West, one of the parties at the moment feels such a merger would be premature. If we look at the past experience with respect to mergers of large institutions, they've not always worked out to the best: they've not always realized the financial savings and they haven't always resulted in more efficiency. Particularly in view of the fact that one of the parties to the proposed marriage is not in favour at this time, that is, the OCI, I would suggest it is premature at this time.

I recognize and certainly the government recognizes the need for coordination between these two agencies in the joint planning. I think that is the preliminary approach that should be taken, to encourage more joint planning and see what can be done with respect to joint management to move towards a more coordinated system. It may in the longer run be best that these institutions be merged, but I suggest it's very premature at this time.

For that reason, the government will not be supporting the resolution, because we feel the merger would be premature. To be fair to both the member for Halton Centre and the member for Simcoe West, I think there's a unified agreement that what we must work on is a comprehensive cancer strategy, and that is the high priority for all of us to work towards in order that we do make continued progress with respect to the treatment and prevention of cancer.

Cancer is a disease. Whether it's something that's more prevalent in our century, perhaps maybe societal, self-inflicted in the sense of the pollution of the environment, the workplace conditions, the lifestyle aspects, we have to look at all these aspects with respect to why it is that cancer has become such a growing disease in our society. We have to be much more successful on the preventive side, as well as providing the needed treatment, as well as providing the care in the community, as well as providing the palliative care so people who are faced with the disease continue to live in the community.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It gives me very great pleasure to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Halton Centre. If we take a look at this resolution and ask ourselves what it really says, it talks about very important things in the delivery of cancer care treatment across this province. It talks about "a cooperative, coordinated system developed on a regional basis." It talks about "a comprehensive system integrating research, education and patient services" which "will enhance the provision of cancer treatment in the province."

When I look at the work of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute, I really say that we are very fortunate in the province of Ontario to have these fine institutions that have provided so much in the way of research, education, cancer treatment and care.

But one thing I have found as we have travelled across the province in our cancer care task force, which was established by Lyn McLeod, is that there's a very different approach in the various regions of the province. Again, when we've been visiting the regional cancer centres, we have been very appreciative of some of the very positive things that have happened in Ontario, that we have a very caring, compassionate, highly skilled staff, including physicians, including therapists, including technicians, including all the support systems, the social workers, the nurses throughout the entire system, and they are doing their best. But one theme is consistently coming out: These people are overworked and overtaxed.

Each individual region has very different needs. We had a presentation from the chief executive officer of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, and he said they've resolved a number of their problems; that they had long waiting lists, but with the delivery of new machines and because they've recently hired four cancer oncologists, some of their problems, at least in the short term, have been remedied.

But other centres were extremely concerned about the shortfall, and I will talk specifically about what we heard at two of the areas in Metro Toronto: first, the Princess Margaret Hospital and, second, the Bayview Regional Cancer Centre. What we heard there was very interesting.

The first thing I learned was that in fact the OCI and the OCTRF only utilize 22% of the resources in the formal cancer system; the remaining 78% is actually in the informal cancer system, and this is in the area, for instance, of the community hospitals. This is where I think we need the greatest coordination and the greatest effort to make sure that they are getting the information, that they are getting the assistance, that in fact that network is out there and working.

1130

Right now I believe that the regional cancer centres are fulfilling a very important function in trying to coordinate this. But one of the concerns of the member for Halton Centre and one of the concerns that I've shared since I've travelled the province is that I'm not sure our network is as strong as it needs to be, particularly in the provision of information and education.

We're looking at two systems, in effect: a formal cancer system which includes our regional cancer centres, and an informal system which includes all the community hospitals, the clinics and the informal mechanisms where they're providing cancer services. I think it's tremendously important, particularly in this day and age, that we ensure that those resources are equitably accessed across the province, that information is available across the province.

That's why I think members of this Legislature should very seriously consider supporting this. She did it by way of a member's resolution, rather than legislation, so that there would be flexibility to give the government the opportunity to further study the issue, weigh the merits and look at some of the disadvantages, certainly, in some of the things that would have to be rectified before we put that in place.

Yesterday, when we had hearings at the Princess Margaret Hospital, and it was a particularly interesting place to have been the day before this resolution, we had a presentation by Dr Tom Dickson, the president of the Ontario Medical Association. I think he summarized a number of the needs of the cancer care system very succinctly.

He said, first of all, that cancer care needs more technical resources, more human resources, more fiscal resources. Secondly, it must be user-friendly. Thirdly, he said cancer care needs a unified and representative cancer care agency. He was very supportive of having this unified body which comprises the OCI, the OCTRF, the Ministry of Health and the OMA, all as partners together, not to say that one of these groups would rule the other. That's not the way he envisaged it, and I know it's not the way the member for Halton Centre sees this.

Fourthly, he said we need continuing medical education, fifthly, that cancer care requires equitable access across the province and a centralized approach to data management, and sixthly, that there should be the development of clinical guidelines, although obviously many are already in place across the province.

When we look at what is provided across the province, it's also important for us to look at where we have dissimilarities. One of these that I found was in the area of patient support. In certain centres such as, for instance, London, when we were there, we had a presentation from a patient who had actually been appointed to the regional advisory council, as a consumer, so that she could put forward her ideas.

The chief executive officer at the London Regional Cancer Centre, Dr Levin, was extremely sensitive to try and incorporate some of the desires of patients and some of the needs of patients into the system.

One of the things that Marie, that patient, said was that when a patient walks in the door, they need the team approach: a social worker, a nutritionist, a nurse, an advocate, a radiation oncologist, a pharmacist and a scientist -- obviously, not at the same time; all these things have to be coordinated at the right time so that they're available for the patients.

We heard from Susan in Toronto, who talked about the stress of being a patient, who also talked about things such as the relocation program for Metro women with breast cancer treatments and how stressful that was, the need for better coordination of information, better communication, better explanations to the patients. All these things lead me to believe that we do need that coordination so the patient support system is there in every part of this province.

I would urge members of this House to support the resolution of the member for Halton Centre, and I very much appreciate her dedication in bringing it forward.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution from the member for Halton Centre, which recommends that the provincial government introduce legislation "to establish an Ontario cancer agency which will merge the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute into one unified organization under a single board, to provide a comprehensive cancer control program for Ontario through a comprehensive cancer centre in each region, and to provide administrative and functional coordination of all resources for cancer control in Ontario."

I'm disappointed to hear that the government is not going to support this resolution. I cannot believe why the debate that's taken place here this morning wouldn't certainly be in the interests of the government's agenda and of the people of this province. I support this resolution in principle because our caucus favours improved management and coordination of cancer services in Ontario.

We have all heard numerous reports from our constituents, health care providers and the media of short staff, long waiting lists and ailing patients with nowhere to turn. I trust you will agree the facts speak for themselves. An estimated 116,200 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in Canada this year alone, and an estimated 59,700 deaths will be caused by cancer. The Ontario Cancer Registry predicts that there will be 30,000 new cases of cancer in men and 28,000 new cases in women in Ontario by the year 2000. So the number of Ontario residents being diagnosed with cancer is growing at about 4% annually.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The waiting lists for treatment of cancers of the breast, cervix, larynx, lung and prostate have doubled over the past decade. Waiting lists at cancer units in Ontario regularly exceed the standards for optimum care set by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists, which suggests that a gap of four weeks between diagnosis and treatment should be the maximum waiting period.

The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has estimated there are 321 radiation therapists employed in Ontario and that we need an additional 104.

This is certainly a disturbing situation and one that has not improved under the mismanagement of the current Minister of Health and her NDP government. There are people dying while on waiting lists, and the Minister of Health sets up her regional round tables to make politically correct cancer decisions.

My party and I support any well-researched coordination and amalgamation efforts that would lead to better services for patients requiring cancer services. If the member for Halton Centre's proposed amalgamation of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute can be shown to result in improved services for patients, I would support the resolution both in principle and in fact. The time is long overdue for this government to develop a province-wide cancer strategy. But I do not believe the proposed merger will result in effective province-wide coordination of cancer services and cost savings.

In today's clippings, it was interesting to see the recommendation that was made yesterday. It says:

"Ontario needs the equivalent of at least two new major cancer centres if it is going to even attempt to keep up with treatment demands, a task force on cancer care was told yesterday.

"That may not be enough if the incidence of the disease increases beyond current projections, which are considered cautious by some members of the medical community, said Dr Tom McCowan."

McCowan, the chairman of the Ontario Medical Association section on radiation oncology and also a practising cancer specialist at Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, says, "We've got a planned shortage of 20 machines year after year until after the turn of the century.... One out of five patients who need radiation therapy year after year is not going to get it and others are going to have to wait longer than they should." This is a cancer specialist whom I'm referring to. He says, "There is implicit rationing in the system right now. We're going to have to start discussing explicit rationing of care."

1140

"Dr William Mackillop, chief of radiation therapy at Kingston Regional Cancer Centre, suggested the Ministry of Health 'has not fully recognized the value of radiotherapy. The indications for radiotherapy are well established today and unlikely to change over the next 20 years,' he said, citing a long list of benefits associated with the treatment."

Another individual at that task force was Susan Copland, who told the task force of the toll taken on her and her family. "'The stress was unbelievable,' she said. 'I didn't sleep well. I didn't function well. To say that I was extremely upset is an understatement.'"

She was a 50-year-old mental health worker who was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago after undergoing a mammogram. She had a lumpectomy in the autumn of 1991 and radiation therapy was prescribed. But she was told that she would have to go to Thunder Bay and her treatments would start in November. The bottom line was she was able to have the treatment in Toronto but she had to wait until December.

"'It was a long, long emotionally draining fall,' said Copland. 'I firmly believe that good mental health is crucial to how cancer patients cope.'"

I think that article really sums up the problem we have here in Ontario today. I say to the member for Halton Centre, bringing this resolution forward for debate in this House is worthy of consideration for this government to support this resolution.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's my pleasure to stand here this morning and debate the resolution as put forward by the member for Halton Centre. I can tell you that when I was elected to this Legislature one of the things in my riding that I thought I wouldn't be addressing was cancer care for my constituents.

I can share with you perhaps a private part of my life that I've never shared with anyone here before, until this morning -- and I think it's very appropriate -- that I, too, have been a victim of cancer on two occasions, and but for the grace of God and Princess Margaret Hospital, I'm able to stand in my place here this morning.

I have a real empathy, a real feeling. I know what it's like to get up in the morning and the first thing on your mind is, when am I going to get treatment? and the last thing on your mind when you go to bed at night is the same thing. When you get up the next morning it's the first thing on your mind. This goes on for weeks and weeks and weeks.

I can tell you that the effects on one's personality are absolutely amazing. You become a different person, because you are consumed with what's going to happen to you and how you're going to be treated.

I have great empathy with the system and the people, the care givers and the ones who give advice to you when you first walk in that door and receive the dreaded news that you have this dreadful disease, and how you cope with it.

Having shared that with you, and I didn't do it in any dramatic means, I just want to tell you that I do have tremendous empathy and feeling about cancer care. I do that in my riding. I represent part of Oshawa and in that riding, represented by my colleague the member for Durham Centre, is Oshawa General Hospital. They have a chemotherapy unit there. I've had meetings with those folks. It's traumatic, the people who go all over the riding, who get up in the morning. They start off at 5 o'clock in the morning and they get on buses and in cars to make their trek down to the Bayview centre or to the Princess Margaret Hospital.

All they're going to get is perhaps a minute of radiation treatment and may be there with five or six other people who've come down there. They wait until the different appointments go through the day and then they struggle back, in most instances, late at night, with a volunteer driver, only to repeat the process for the next day. In most cases the treatments last perhaps 24 days, 30 days, and they do this for that period of time. That is an awful, traumatic experience to go through for all that time.

I'd just like to give you some facts about Durham region in general. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of new cancer cases in Durham region that were registered at radiation therapy centres increased by 61%. The number of new cancer cases each year from the region of Durham will increase by 56% over the next 10 years, from 1,720 in 1991 to 2,680 by the year 2001. At the recently opened chemotherapy unit in Oshawa General Hospital, in 1992-93 there were 6,072 outpatient visits. That's 164% higher than the case load of just five years ago.

The only cancer treatment that's not available at present at the Oshawa General Hospital is radiation therapy. I for one, and I don't know whether it's my government's policy but I'm speaking as a concerned representative of the people in Durham East -- we are asking that this be considered, and considered very soon. I don't like to see people coming into my office in a state of despair about the delay in getting into various cancer treatment centres.

I think perhaps we could do some things with this resolution. Personally, I've got some difficulty recognizing the benefits that the merger would bring. It begs the question, to me, of, why merge these organizations. While we support the concept of a comprehensive, cooperative, coordinated system of cancer care -- and goodness only knows I do -- we believe perhaps we have to go much further in a cancer strategy than a merger of the two existing organizations.

I applaud the member for Halton Centre for bringing this forward. It's good that we debate these issues here and it's good that we debate them as individuals who represent various ridings across this province. That's what this is all about. I would like to ask the member if perhaps the two organizations hopefully can investigate the possible benefits and the adverse effects of such a merger.

We can do so much, I think, to prevent cancer. I maybe step outside my bounds as an MPP, but I'm always encouraging people who come to see me in a discussion, asking them, "When did you have a checkup?" They say, "I haven't been to the doctor for 20 years." So in a nice, roundabout way I say to them, "I really think you should go." This prevention and encouraging people to look after themselves is another aspect of this.

I'm very privileged to be able to speak and share my own personal experiences here with the House this morning.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to be able to speak to the motion standing in the name of my colleague and friend Mrs Sullivan, the member for Halton Centre.

It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Durham East who, like another politician of my acquaintance, speaks straight from the heart. I thought, as always, Mr Mills was very poignant and very helpful in his observations.

I too have been travelling with the Liberal task force on cancer care. Later this afternoon I'll be driving to Sudbury to participate in the hearings there tomorrow. I have been impressed, fascinated, troubled by a lot of what I've heard. My overwhelming impression is what a good system we do have and how incredibly effective a lot of providers and support groups are.

We were in London not too long ago, and as I think Mrs Sullivan may have commented in her remarks, the London regional cancer treatment facility, under the able direction of Dr Levin, and all the support groups and all the outreach were absolutely impressive, as I think we have found in Toronto and in Kingston and in Hamilton.

1150

There are problems, and the problems are not everywhere the same. One of the things that's been identified in the hearings, and certainly was very, very directly spoken to by the president of the Ontario Medical Association, is this whole issue and the whole question of a coordinated approach to cancer care in the province.

Mrs Sullivan reminded me just a moment ago, and I'll ask her to correct me if I'm wrong, that something like 50% of all cancer patients in the province of Ontario are dealt with, are treated, outside of the formal system that is represented by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute. Am I not correct in that?

That means 50%, or a very large number of the cancer patients in Ontario, in communities like Frontenac and Renfrew and Durham and Toronto, are dealt with by other means: their local doctor, their local public hospital, their local physiotherapist or some other therapist or some other support group or treatment facility.

That's surprising to me, because I would have ima-gined the percentage of individuals outside of the formal system to have been much, much smaller. But roughly one in two patients with cancer in the province are treated by individuals or organizations outside of what we will call the formal system.

What Mrs Sullivan has tried to do in this motion is make the point that we must have better coordination. We must ensure that the very excellent and able leadership that is provided by the formal system -- the Princess Margaret, the Ontario Cancer Institute, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and they are wonderful people with a tremendous record and a very considerable mandate -- that their standards, their leadership and their follow-up are provided not just to people inside the formal system but also the nearly 50% of cancer care that is provided outside of that system.

Dr Dickson, in his testimony before the Liberal task force committee yesterday, made a very compelling argument in support, I think, of the intent of Mrs Sullivan's resolution. That is one of the issues on which I am sure all members would want to support the member who has put the resolution in today.

As the previous speaker, Mr Mills, indicated, there is an enormous sensitivity throughout the province about cancer care. We need to assure to a greater degree than we have that there is one very good standard all across the province and that there is a coordination, there is a focus and there is a leadership to ensure that if you are a cancer patient in Sioux Lookout, Ontario, or in the west end of Toronto, you are going to be provided, within reason, with the same information, the same education, the same support and the same range of choices.

I say, in taking my seat to provide the few last moments to my colleague from Halton, the fact that we have at least 50% of cancer patients outside the formal system -- and we know, and the OMA testimony yesterday makes plain that there is worrisome evidence that there is an unevenness at the present time -- should give pause and should I think cause us all to want to support the resolution Mrs Sullivan has brought here today.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I'm very pleased to speak in this debate and I welcome the initiative of the member for Halton Centre in introducing this motion about a very important topic. If there were strong pressure from the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute to go ahead with this, I would be very supportive, but I gather that there are some reservations there.

I'd like to use this opportunity to say a few things relating to my personal experience which I think tend to be overlooked. I notice the use of the term "formal and informal systems," and I'm not sure if that's the best term. I have participated in what is referred to as the informal system both as a patient and a practitioner.

As a patient who has had a gastrointestinal malignancy, my treatment was entirely within the general system. I have had no contact that I know of with the so-called formal system, although I assume I am actually registered on the Ontario Cancer Registry, something which I think is extremely important and one of the things which I think we have to do much to encourage these bodies. Whether that is done by a merger, I'm not sure and I would like to be convinced of that, but we certainly do have a very important role for epidemiology, for types of research which can be best done, I believe, through these formal bodies.

I have so little time and there are so many things. Another important aspect of the informal system which I think cannot be underestimated is the palliative care system. I'm not sure how this proposal would help that, and indeed I'm not even sure whether it should. Palliative care certainly involves cancer, but it certainly involves other diseases as well. This is something where community practitioners have an enormous amount to offer. I think my medical colleagues, the nurses who work with them, do a wonderful job out in the community, and I don't think they would like to find themselves exclusively concerned with cancer.

I'd like to pay tribute to the Palliative At-Home Care Team in Scarborough, which is exactly that, and I believe in many ways is a leader in the province if not in the country in what can be done for palliative care at home.

This may involve the specialized agencies if there's chemotherapy, but I think there's a lot of basic medical care, helping families, helping relieve pain and suffering, which should be basic to all health practitioners, to all doctors really, to deal with what we know is a universal problem.

Mrs Sullivan: I appreciate the little extra time which my colleague has allowed me for summing up, and I want to thank those who have participated in the debate. I have listened to their comments and I believe that each one of them has brought thoughtful remarks to this issue.

With respect to the letter which Mr Wilson, the member for Simcoe West, brought to the floor, yesterday I spoke with Mr Ed King, chairman of the Princess Margaret Hospital, about this resolution and discussed his concerns about a signal which would be made by this House and the effect that signal would have on what is a very serious and large capital fund-raising campaign.

I assured him that the intent of this resolution was first of all to underline that the mandates of the OCI and the OCTRF would not be changed in a renewed structure. However, what was vitally important would be that the leadership, the expertise, the research capability was transferred in a logical and methodical way to the community and to community providers.

I believe that capital campaigns should not be affected. In fact, in my own community at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, we have a capital campaign for cancer care going on at the same time, and I would hope that a coordinated system through which donors would have their realistic assurance that we have a coordinated and comprehensive approach to cancer care would in fact enhance fund-raising drives.

I believe that we will never have an effective, efficient, multidisciplinary and multimodal approach to cancer control in our current scenario with the cancer system in one corner and those who work outside of the system in another corner. I believe that we need the expertise and the leadership of the OCI and the OCTRF involved in a new cancer agency, that the medical association and the hospitals must also be involved in a new cancer agency and that this organization should in fact put into place the programs and the administration of a cancer control system.

We must have across-the-province standards that are consistent in terms of principles for referral, for assessment of treatment and for follow-up of patients. I believe that these should be done with a minimum of government intervention by those who are involved as stakeholders, including patients, and I do urge that members of the House support the principle of this resolution and vote yes today.

The Deputy Speaker: The time that is provided for private members' public business has expired.

SENATE OF CANADA

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 37 standing in the name of Mr Perruzza. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Perruzza has moved private member's resolution number 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Perruzza has moved private member's resolution number 31. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Bradley, Callahan, Carter, Conway, Cooper, Cordiano, Curling, Duignan, Fletcher, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Johnson (Don Mills), Kormos, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, O'Connor, Offer, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sutherland, Tilson, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Nays

Daigeler, Sullivan.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes being 44, the nays 2, I declare the motion carried.

CANCER TREATMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 38 standing in the name of Mrs Sullivan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Sullivan has moved private member's resolution number 29. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will adjourn until 1:30.

The House recessed at 1211 and resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a letter from one of my constituents which calls for appropriate government action.

"I am writing this letter to express my concerns regarding the cutbacks in Ontario's health care system. I am 51 years of age and suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. I have had two hip replacements and am awaiting surgery to replace my knees. Upon reading my local newspaper, the St Catharines Standard, I was outraged to see that replacement surgeries were not listed among those considered crucial. Speaking from experience, I consider these procedures very important. Anyone living with the intolerable pain would agree that long waiting periods for surgery are inhumane and insulting.

"On a recent trip to the hospital I learned that the orthopaedic wards at both of St Catharines's hospitals have been closed. Since I am waiting for surgery in this area, this knowledge obviously frightens me. I have recently heard rumours that the surgeon that did both my hip replacements is leaving for the United States to practise medicine....It scares me to learn that competent medical doctors are being forced out of the country due to the lack of funding, and as a consequence the necessary professional service is suffering.

"I believe that one person's medical treatment cannot be considered more important than another person's given that all of the working class population contributes to health care fund through taxes....

"I think it should be brought to the attention of the government that orthopaedic surgery often pertains to elderly people. It is as unethical and disgraceful to discriminate against age as it is to do so on race, colour, religion etc. In closing, it is my wish the medical cutbacks be reviewed and changes made that will benefit all."

I agree with this statement and call upon the government to take appropriate action.

TVO FUND-RAISING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to congratulate TVOntario and its volunteers for their efforts in raising funds through TVO's membership drive, which wraps up this Saturday. The public is also to be commended for showing its financial support and its interest in the type of programming TVO offers.

TVO's goal of raising $350,000 from its on-air membership campaign has already been surpassed. The funds will go towards maintaining the type of quality programming which people in Ontario have come to enjoy. In today's economic climate when government deficits mean funding cutbacks, it is especially important and refreshing to see the public coming through voluntarily to fill in the gap.

TVO continues to provide innovative and excellent educational programming. Shows like Bookmice, Polka Dot Door and Mathica's Mathshop delight, entertain and educate children. Adults tune in to current event shows like Between the Lines, which many of the members watch religiously, and movie buffs enjoy Saturday Night at the Movies.

I want to once again wish congratulations and my best wishes to the volunteers and crew at TVOntario as they continue their successful on-air membership drive.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'm very pleased with the Minister of Health's announcement today regarding dialysis treatment. This announcement has an important impact for many of the people of my riding. This expansion of dialysis services to an independent health facility means that the people in the rural part of my riding will have the opportunity to access this life-saving treatment while not having to travel far from home. This is important not only for my constituents but for many people in the eastern GTA who will have this essential service brought closer to them.

The Ministry of Health will fund 36 dialysis treatments a week in an independent outpatient clinic in Markham. Service should begin in February. This means that people who otherwise might have to stay in hospital to receive dialysis will be able to receive it on an outpatient basis and be able to spend more time at home with their families. That point alone has many health benefits.

I am concerned to hear, though, that the number of people in need of the treatment is increasing at an annual rate of about 10% and that the number of organs donated has declined. I believe that the real answer is the organ transplant program as, although dialysis treatment is a lifesaver and this outpatient clinic in Markham will provide some freedom to those who need the treatment, organ transplant will really give these people back their independence, which they so desperately need.

I am hopeful that more patients will benefit from kidney transplants as a result of the development of a plan by Multiple Organ Retrieval and Exchange Ontario, a plan that is funded by this government. In the meantime, however, the government is committed to ensuring dialysis treatment is readily available as part of our overall commitment to preserving health care in this province. The funding the Ministry --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I want to bring to the attention of the House what I believe is an extremely important matter, not only in my constituency but in terms of health care planning.

Ten per cent of the population of Burlington receive their primary care from a physician-sponsored health service organization called the Caroline Medical Group. This practice provides multidisciplinary care in an innovative way involving a variety of health care practitioners. It has been the model for alternate funding for physicians, and the staff of 32 full- and part-time workers and five physicians are dedicated to providing comprehensive care to keep people out of hospital. Services provided emphasize ambulatory care, health promotion and home-based treatment programs. Early diagnosis, including breast screening and cervical cancer screening, drug utilization and other areas, such as an in-the-home care program, a home intravenous antibiotic program and so on, are very much a part of their activities.

Their funding has been cut by 35.6%. With those cuts, which are extremely shortsighted, not only will this program and this particular group fail, but so will the entire experiment in Ontario with alternative funding models in health care delivery. This government should be ashamed of itself.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it concerns his Sewell commission and the concerns on planning and development reform in Ontario.

Municipal governments throughout Ontario worked with the Sewell commission during the consultative process to ensure planning is more accountable, efficient and fair in terms of public participation. They believe changes to the planning system must provide flexibility to allow for regional and local differences and to ensure Ontario remains strong from an economic, social and cultural perspective. Changes must foster a perception in the marketplace that Ontario is open for business.

However, the NDP government's overrestrictive policies, regulations and a lengthy approval process have weakened the province's competitive position and discouraged economic development at a time when it is most needed.

Municipal governments warn that most of the Sewell commission's recommendations will not assist in the recovery in Ontario. In fact the collective impact of new official plans at every level, intervenor funding, comprehensive watershed studies and environmental impact studies will result in more uncertainty and significant delays in approving new, well-planned developments.

I support Ontario's municipalities that are demanding extensive public consultations on all provincial policy statements and all amendments to the Planning Act recommended by the Sewell commission. This commission should be abandoned.

OKTOBERFEST WOMEN OF THE YEAR

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm sure all members are aware of Kitchener-Waterloo's Oktoberfest. Today, I'm pleased to rise and inform members of the Oktoberfest Women of the Year recipients.

The 12 women recognized this year are all exceptional in their areas. The categories and recipients are as follows: for young adult, Shalene McCreary; volunteerism, Valerie Corcoran; sport and recreation, Marg Kirkoran; seniors, Helen Fowler; professional, Jean Brett; multicultural, Gehan Darwash Sabry; humanitarian, Sue Coulter; homemaker, Barb Da Silva; employee, Margaret Stahle; business/entrepreneur, Sonia Adlys; art/history/literature, Mary Ann Horst; and for advocacy, Donna Reid.

During our Oktoberfest celebrations these women were recognized by their peers, friends and families and I had the pleasure of attending a reception in their honour. These women have dedicated themselves to the greatest form of expression. It is a message that spills forth from them for their community, for Ontario and for Canada. As Ontarians, we are beginning to recognize the excellence that is inherent in our province and we are beginning to stand up with pride for what we believe in and for what our province represents. Nowhere is that more evident than in these recipients and the other women who were nominated in these categories.

I would like to take a few moments to invite all members to the December 6 candlelight vigil and service, if there's one being held in their area. Donna Reid, the recipient in the advocacy category, has set up the December 6 coalition for Waterloo region.

1340

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Yesterday Ontarians received the news that Ontario's credit rating was downgraded again. This makes the third time in three years that Ontario's credit rating has been downgraded under Bob Rae's government.

Ontario lost its AAA rating back in 1991, then the province was downgraded in 1992 and now a further downgrade occurred yesterday. The fiscal performance has been woeful under this government, but at least the Finance minister knows the facts, unlike the leader of the third party.

The Conservative leader stood in this House yesterday and said, "These are the same bond rating agencies that for 42 years gave us an AAA rating when Progressive Conservative governments managed the affairs of this province."

As with many things economic, when the leader of the third party speaks, he has a simplistic but often erroneous interpretation of the facts. In reality, Ontario only had an AAA credit rating for 11 -- yes, that's 11 -- years of the 42 years of Conservative rule in this province. From 1943 until 1977, a total of 31 years, Ontario had either an A or an AA rating. In fact, during the first 23 years of Conservative rule, the credit rating was an A, lower than the current level under the NDP.

So when the Conservative leader stands in the House and talks about the AAA credit rating under the Conservatives, Ontarians should realize that, as with the Helle Hulgaard scandal, the leader of the third party has spoken before checking his facts.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): This morning I attended a meeting of the Safe School Task Force to address the serious problem of now crisis proportions of violence in our schools. Present were teachers, students, trustees and Metro Toronto Police Chief Bill McCormack, who expressed his frustration at being faced with $22 million in budget cuts and potential layoffs of about 400 officers. These cuts will seriously undermine, if not totally cancel, the ability of the police to deal sensitively with school violence through the Metro Toronto street youth crime unit.

After months of neglect of the problem of school violence, the only assurance that this Minister of Education and Training could give the task force this morning was a promise of $25,000 to reprint and distribute the Safe School Task Force report and to convene a conference to discuss the issue some time next year.

Everyone -- I mean everyone -- at that meeting agreed that new partnerships must be formed in order to turn around this most serious problem which has been ignored by this government for far too long. The announcement by the minister today is nothing more than an attempt at crisis management and a deplorable display of funding priorities: to commit only $25,000 when his government gives $4.3 million for an indoor, in-ground, swimming pool with other recreational upgrades for convicted young offenders at the Syl Apps detention centre in Oakville.

It is time for this government to wake up and to take notice of what is happening in schools across Ontario today. As Chief McCormack put it to the committee and to those assembled this morning, "You can invest now in crime prevention in our society or else society will pay later with the additional and unacceptable human costs involved by ignoring this problem."

JOE BELCOT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to a man who has kept sports alive in West Lincoln for more than 35 years: Joe Belcot of Smithville.

This tireless community volunteer is credited with founding the Niagara Peninsula Softball Association, the West Lincoln Minor Hockey Association and the township's recreation committee. There isn't enough time to list all of Joe's other sports-related accomplishments. Let's just say that at least three generations of athletes know him on a first-name basis.

Last week, Joe was recognized for his dedication to sports. The region of Niagara sports initiative committee selected him for the Investors Group Community Sports Administration Award. He accepted the honour last Wednesday night during a ceremony at White Oaks Inn and Racquet Club in St Catharines. The award recognizes his tremendous contribution to sports in West Lincoln.

A familiar face around Smithville, Joe has served all facets of his community. He has long been involved with the local Lions Club, serving many years as president, and is a member of the local chamber of commerce. Joe recently devoted countless hours to organizing the annual Lions Club food drive.

On behalf of the people of Lincoln, I offer my heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Joe Belcot, a fine citizen indeed.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 38(a) to bring to your attention that later this afternoon I will be introducing a bill to deal with water extraction, which has been a very big problem in my area. Although it says that no notice is required to introduce this bill, I wanted to alert people that this bill was coming later this afternoon and I've asked for your good grace to allow me to make that pre-statement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, you can't do that. The member knows he doesn't have a point of order, but indeed he's provided a courtesy to the House and to the Chair and I appreciate that.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could be permitted by my colleagues to make a statement on the white ribbon campaign.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I rise today to recognize the launch of the white ribbon campaign. The campaign focuses on men's responsibility to end violence against women.

This year's campaign will run from November 27 to December 3. Its task is to educate men about their collective responsibility to end violence. As men, we join with the thousands of women working to end violence against women, and our responsibility is great.

Violence against women affects all women. It is not more prevalent in certain cultures or groups of people. It happens in small communities and large, and it happens in good economic times and bad.

Today we have more evidence than ever that ending violence should be our most important social responsibility. Women fear the dangers of violence when they walk alone in the dark and they fear the dangers of violence in their intimate relationships with men.

Women's fears are real. We know that one half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incidence of violence since the age of 16 and that one out of every four women has experienced violence in the hands of her current or past marital partner. As men, we must take responsibility to tell other men that this violence is wrong and that there is no excuse to use violence to vent frustration or to solve arguments.

Women have broken the silence and come forward and named the violence. Now men must break their silence and challenge other men who use violence in their relationships with women.

We must also challenge sexist jokes and language that degrade women and we must identify and challenge sexual harassment in our workplaces and schools. Each of us must take on this challenge with our families, friends and co-workers.

Members of my caucus wear a white ribbon today as our personal pledge never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women, and we commit today to carry that pledge in all of our relationships.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise in support of the statement which my friend and colleague the Minister of Finance has just made, and I would like to respond from my own caucus to add a few more comments.

One of the things that so often occurs when we talk about this issue of violence against women, particularly the responsibility of men in that, is that so often many men will back off and say, "Well, I'm not guilty of that in my own life, so don't raise it, don't discuss it."

I think the minister used the term "responsibility," and that is the word we need to look at in terms of, what is our responsibility, as men, in trying to make sure that this kind of violence does not continue and that we really can establish a zero tolerance of violence against women? That is where we as men have a very important role to play.

In the material which the white ribbon campaign people have sent out, and I commend it to everyone, they talk about the kinds of things which we as men can do within our communities, that we can do with other men that we can apply in terms of ending violence of all kinds, whether it's violence in the school yard, violence among children, violence against other men. But more specifically, here we are talking about violence against women.

1350

Two years ago, when they launched this campaign, it was interesting that in the comments the organizers made they said that if it were between countries we'd call it a war, if it were a disease we'd call it an epidemic, if it were an oil spill we'd call it a disaster, but far too often we're afraid almost to call it anything or to discuss it or to admit the reality that is out there."

Again, as the minister pointed out, the statistics from the study that was presented to the federal government just a week or 10 days ago underline a reality that we simply must accept in terms of the fact that it happens and then really commit ourselves to making sure that won't happen again.

Maybe the best way for us as men to understand it is to think of our own families, to think of our wives, to think of our daughters, to think of our mothers. Just yesterday, in talking with my own daughter, who's in her early 20s, she was telling me that on the weekend she was going to be babysitting for some friends, for their children, in another place some 30 to 40 miles away from where she lives. She said to me, "Could I borrow your car, which has a phone in it? I will feel I have more protection."

I said to myself, as a father and as a man, that so often for those of us who are males, we don't think in those terms, yet here was my daughter, who, in organizing her life, in trying to plan sensibly, is just saying, "If I've got the possibility of a car that has a phone in it, that's probably better in case something happens to the car." As a father, it just made me stop, sit down and say, "Okay, there is the reality; that's what we're talking about."

For those of us who are men, let's not worry about wandering around saying, "I'm not guilty," or, "Why should I be involved in this? This is just stuff that doesn't directly refer to me." It does, and it does simply in the sense that we bear a responsibility and we can, in our own actions, do something about it. I think that is what the Minister of Finance was saying. I think that's what we all want to say. That's why we want to join in this campaign to make sure our zero tolerance finally will end up where there will not be these statistics of violence against women and we will have really achieved something.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): It is with some sadness that I rise to speak on behalf of my caucus on the issue of violence against women. I find it very sad indeed that we live in a society where we have to have an annual awareness campaign on this issue, that despite the advances we've been able to make in so many areas of social justice, we still have to remind each other that no man has the right to raise his hand against a woman.

It's a sad commentary on the kind of society we live in that in these times we still witness events like the one four years ago in Montreal when 14 women were slaughtered for no other reason than because of their gender. It's truly saddening that we are all so familiar with names like Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French, Nina de Villiers. Equally saddening, there are thousands and thousands of other women who continually suffer at the hands of violent men, women who are not household names but who suffer none the less.

So again we rise to mark this grim but necessary week. It's often true that where there is grief and sadness there is also cause for hope. I believe that is where the emphasis of White Ribbon Week should lie: in the hope that the awareness campaign will pay off; in the hope that the incalculable toll that violence against women takes on individuals, on families and on all of us as a society will grow smaller with each passing day, each passing month and year; and in the hope that White Ribbon Week may soon change in meaning from an effort to put a stop to the ongoing violence to a remembrance of the way things used to be and to a marker of how far we truly may have come as a society.

It is with this goal in mind that my caucus and I stand in support of White Ribbon Week, in support of continuing efforts to eradicate violence against women. We stand beside all of those who are actively working in the educational and awareness programs aimed at solving the underlying problems which manifest themselves in this violence against women.

We stand with all members of this House in again issuing the call to violent men to lay down their arms, to stop the suffering and to put an end to the violence.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd like to seek unanimous consent to note the passing of one of our previous members of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed. The member for Carleton.

WILLIAM ERSKINE JOHNSTON

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Last evening, William Erskine Johnston, from Carp, and the former MPP for Carleton, the riding which I represent, passed away at the age of 88.

Erskine Johnston was the member for Carleton from 1955 to 1971. He was a dairy farmer from the Carp Valley and had perhaps one of the most prosperous and best farms in the whole Carp Valley, which has some very, very rich, rich soil.

Erskine Johnston was a large man in stature and he was a very large man in terms of what he did for his community and what he felt for his community. He was so highly respected. Even up to this past October when I met Erskine at the Carp fair, when he was confined at that time to a wheelchair and could barely see or hear, Erskine was still taking an interest in his community. It was amazing to me that a former member of this Legislature could command such respect, such honour, and be remembered so dearly by his community some 22 or 23 years after he had left the Ontario Legislature.

Erskine Johnston was a man who spoke in this Legislature not very frequently, but when he spoke he was well prepared. I am told by some of my predecessors, some of the people who knew this place prior to 1971 -- there is not one member in this Legislature who now sits here who sat at that time, but I am told by some of those who were here that even when he would go to a caucus meeting, Erskine Johnston would speak from prepared notes so that he was certain he was putting forth his particular views of his constituents in a meaningful and organized fashion.

I know all members of this Legislature would wish me, on their behalf, to convey our sympathies to his wife, Aleta, and his family and his community of Carp, which he served so well while he was a member of this Legislature and served so well after he was a member of this Legislature.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I know the members of the government would want to join with my good friend from Carleton in celebrating the life of Erskine Johnston as well as in passing on our very best wishes to all the members of his family.

His contributions to this place have been noted by all of us as well as by the very eloquent remarks of my friend Mr Sterling, and we very much want to be associated with what he had to say, and very much want to pass on the wishes of our caucus to all the members of Erskine Johnston's family.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On behalf of my party, I also would like to extend our sincere sympathy to the family of Mr Erskine Johnston.

I should explain to the members why I, as the member for Nepean, sincerely regret the passing of Mr Erskine Johnston. At the time when Mr Johnston was the member for Carleton, the city of Nepean was part of that riding. In fact, I have in my office, hanging on the wall, the picture of Erskine Johnston as one of previous members of the area I represent.

In fact, about two years ago when I opened this little exhibition, I had close relatives of Mr Johnston in my office to represent him, because already at that time, unfortunately, he was not able to come to this opening. He was already frail at that point, and indeed he resided, at least at that time -- I'm not quite sure whether he recently resided there -- in my riding in a home in Nepean.

So I as well, as the member for Nepean and as a member from an area that Mr Johnston represented, extend my personal sympathy and the sympathy of my caucus to the Johnston family.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The thoughtful comments by the member for Carleton, the Premier and the member for Nepean will be forwarded to the family of Mr Erskine Johnston.

1400

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Members on all sides of the House will remember my September 27 announcement that the Ontario government would take actions to mirror the effect of the Quebec trade barriers that discriminate against Ontario workers and companies. I want to take this opportunity to update members on the status of these initiatives.

There are four areas where our government is taking action. First, the Ministry of Transportation has altered its subsidy policy for municipal bus purchases to mirror the effect of Quebec's barriers. Subsidies are not available for the purchase of buses manufactured in Quebec. All new bus purchases will be governed by the new policy.

Second, I have written letters to municipalities, major private sector organizations and construction companies, encouraging them to adopt restrictions on the use of Quebec contractors, subcontractors and construction products. A number of municipalities have already passed resolutions of support or are considering changes to their own procurement practices.

Third, Management Board secretariat has prepared new construction procurement directives for ministries, crown agencies and transfer recipients in the broader public sector. Management Board's new policy was adopted in September, and ministries are now implementing the policy for their purchases or for those of their transfer payment recipients. To date, over $660 million worth of tenders, involving both direct government projects and contracts let by other agencies, have been affected by our policy.

Today, my colleague the Minister of Labour will deal with the fourth issue, labour mobility. He will be introducing legislation which will have the effect of imposing the same restrictions on Quebec workers as are now imposed on Ontario residents by Quebec's construction legislation and regulations.

Enfin, aujourd'hui même mon collègue le ministre du Travail se penche sur la quatrième section : la mobilité des travailleurs. Il déposera un projet de loi qui aura pour effet d'imposer les mêmes restrictions aux travailleurs québécois qui sont imposées aux travailleurs ontariens par la législation et les règlements du Québec relatifs au bâtiment.

Currently, we are experiencing a severe imbalance in the number of construction workers who are able to find work on the other side of the border. While approximately 4,000 Quebec residents work in the Ottawa area alone, less than 350 Ontarians are able to work in Quebec.

The legislation to be introduced today will place a restriction on employment in the construction sector. Those construction workers who are residents of a jurisdiction which discriminates against Ontario construction workers will not be allowed to work in Ontario. This requirement will apply across the board to both public sector and private sector construction.

We have consulted with all major stakeholders on these policies. Our government has met with representatives of industry and labour to listen to their views. We have worked with municipal leaders and other officials in the broader public sector in designing our response.

Already, I can report that our actions are having some effect. Quebec labour and business groups have been very quick to react to our initiatives. Many have called on their own government to change its policies and practices and to resume negotiations. As well, the Quebec government recently made some minor changes to its policies and practices. These moves appear to signal a willingness to end some of its discrimination against residents from other provinces and to negotiate changes.

In early November, Quebec signed a procurement agreement with New Brunswick. The deal is limited; it does not even cover construction nor does it deal with labour mobility. However, in negotiating this deal, Quebec has shown that it recognizes that there are problems with its procurement system and that changes are necessary. The agreement also indicates that Quebec is prepared to negotiate on a bilateral basis with other provinces.

As well, the Quebec government recently introduced new legislation to change its construction labour laws. However, preliminary reviews suggest the proposed bill would provide only very limited access for Ontario workers to jobs in Quebec. It clearly does not deal with all of the issues that Ontario has raised.

Our officials have met with officials from the Quebec government to explore in detail their legislation and areas of concern to Ontario. Our approach continues to be to maintain the incentive for Quebec to level the playing field between our two provinces. That is why we are announcing our legislation this afternoon.

At the same time, members should be aware of the efforts that the federal, provincial and territorial governments are making to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. Ontario and other governments have committed themselves to a comprehensive process to address this issue. Negotiations towards an agreement that will reduce these impediments to jobs and economic growth are continuing.

I want to stress that Ontario remains fully committed to this process and will continue to actively participate in the multilateral comprehensive negotiations. It is my hope that these negotiations will produce an agreement by June 1994.

I also want to reiterate that Ontario remains committed to a negotiated settlement of all outstanding issues with Quebec. I have personally communicated this commitment to M. Tremblay, my Quebec counterpart. The measures I have mentioned today and the introduction of new labour legislation are designed to support negotiations to resolve these areas in dispute and to bring down interprovincial trade barriers.

I wish to repeat the assurances we have made directly to the government of Quebec: Ontario will abandon its actions as soon as Quebec opens its borders to Ontario workers and firms.

Je souhaite renouveler les assurances que nous avons données au gouvernement du Québec, à savoir que l'Ontario suspendra les mesures qu'il a prises dès que le Québec ouvrira ses frontières aux entreprises et travailleurs ontariens.

Ontario is committed to the elimination of all interprovincial trade barriers and will continue to work alongside all other governments in Canada to achieve that goal. We are determined that both sets of negotiations will succeed.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Schools in Ontario should be safe places, places where students need only be concerned about learning. Aggressive behaviour in school yards is not new, but the forms it is taking have changed. When I was a student, there were no guns or knives in our schools. But our schools are microcosms of our society, and our society has become more violent and so have our schools.

Recently, the media have detailed some serious incidents. But reading the news doesn't give a full sense of the anguish felt by victims and their families.

In my travels around the province people have shared with me their personal experiences with violence. Students shouldn't have to suffer the indignities that we are hearing about these days to get an education. We will not tolerate violent behaviour in our schools.

Those who are responsible for violent acts must accept the consequences of their actions.

If government, parents, teachers, school boards, students, social service and law enforcement agencies work together, we can ensure that schools are safe and secure environments for learning.

Excellent work is already being done by individual school boards and parents. I am thinking of programs such as School Watch and Parents Against Violence. The Safe School Task Force has also played an important leadership role.

Because this issue touches so many people, it is best addressed by a unified strategy, a strategy that sets out clear consequences for antisocial behaviour but also begins to deal with the root causes of that behaviour.

That's why I would like to present to you today my ministry's planned strategies for violence-free schools.

I will be directing all school boards to develop violence prevention policies. Some already have such policies, but all boards should be ready to meet the situation head-on. We need to bring some uniformity to these policies across the province. They should include strategies for both immediate intervention and long-term prevention. We will be sharing policy guidelines with boards, and I hope all boards will give priority to having their policies ready to be reviewed by ministry staff.

Some boards have adopted policies permanently expelling students responsible for violent incidents. Other schools have the right to know about a student's history of violent behaviour. Therefore, we will seek to ensure that students who are expelled or suspended for violent acts will have this noted on their records.

1410

We can't allow such students to undermine the learning environment for others and we can't condone violent behaviour. But we must recognize that there is a real need to help these troubled students and their families to make sure that we do all that is necessary to create opportunities for these students to become productive citizens.

We will be developing an interministerial task force to develop special programs for students who have jeopardized or lost their right to attend schools in a particular jurisdiction.

The Ministry of Education and Training has instructed school boards that violent incidents in schools must be reported to police and to the Ministry of Education and Training.

To assist the boards, we will prepare a policy memorandum about the process schools should follow for mandatory reporting of these incidents. We will solicit a wide range of views on this policy from school boards, teachers and students.

In the meantime, we will continue to support those on the front lines. I know that, as always, they will continue to use their common sense in dealing with acts of violence.

On March 5, 1994, the Ministry of Education and Training will co-sponsor with other Ontario government ministries, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Safe School Task Force a community summit about violence in schools. This working session will consolidate the partnerships necessary to address this problem.

We will bring together a broad cross-section of Ontarians to look for long-term solutions to creating safe schools. We will encourage parents from urban and rural areas, young people, educators and community leaders to attend. I hope they will use this meeting as an opportunity to share best practices and also to discuss and bring final shape to the policy memorandum on reporting violent incidents.

In February of this year my ministry released the Common Curriculum, which includes a strong emphasis on teaching violence prevention, citizenship development and conflict resolution. I am asking school boards to implement the violence prevention and citizenship outcomes in the Common Curriculum immediately. My ministry will be developing or acquiring appropriate learning materials to support this implementation.

In addition, it is important for us to deal with violence prevention in the context of anti-racism and Bill 21, which addresses racially motivated harassment.

We will be encouraging students to play a more active role in dealing with the problem at their schools. We will support the creation of safe school committees so that students and others can become more involved in finding solutions.

We are planning a communications campaign aimed at students in the community that will build greater public awareness of the problem and create support for solutions.

In closing, I would just like to add that by working to end violence in our schools we are affirming that students and teachers are important and that nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of learning opportunities that students need to become fulfilled members of our society.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses, the official opposition.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, earlier in members' statements one of the members indicated that the Minister of Health had a statement with respect to dialysis. We've not heard that. I'd be interested in asking for unanimous consent so that she can bring that statement to the House.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a statement by the Minister of Health? No, I heard at least one negative voice.

COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Madame la Ministre, premièrement, mes félicitations pour vos nouvelles compétences dans la langue française ; c'est très impressionnant, mais lorsque je regarde le titre --

Interjection: She needs the translation for that one.

M. Poirier : Voilà. Je voulais vous dire que, en réaction à votre déclaration, lorsque vous mentionnez que c'est pour les travailleurs et les travailleuses du bâtiment, je trouve qu'il manque un peu du complet et du sérieux là-dedans. Je peux vous assurer que lorsque vous avez fait votre déclaration le 27 septembre, vous faisiez référence aux barrières commerciales avec le Québec. Étant député frontalier avec la province de Québec, je peux vous assurer que les barrières sont loin d'être complètes et n'ont certainement pas été adressées par votre gouvernement jusqu'à ce moment-ci.

Dans votre troisième niveau de mesures que vous démontrez dans votre déclaration, vous dites justement qu'il y a des directives qui ont été émises pour les marchés des travaux publics et pour les bénéficiaires de transferts de paiement des ministères et des sociétés de la Couronne. Ce que je voudrais savoir c'est quelle sorte de provision vous allez avoir justement pour punir, comment vous allez punir ceux qui ne se plieraient pas à vos exigences et quelles sortes de contrôles vous aurez. J'aurais préféré que vous soyez plus claire et je vous encourage à l'être.

Plus tard, vous dites également, «Mon collègue le ministre du Travail se penche sur la quatrième section : la mobilité des travailleurs.» Je peux vous assurer que mes collègues députés de la région de l'est et sûrement du nord ont souvent des questions des commettants et des commettantes qui veulent savoir qui est visé, comment ça va s'appliquer, quelles sont les restrictions et quels critères vous allez utiliser. Donc, c'est ce qui m'inquiète un peu.

Un peu plus loin, vous faites référence aux 4 000 Québécois qui travaillent dans la région d'Ottawa ainsi qu'aux 350 Ontariens et Ontariennes qui travaillent au Québec. Je peux vous assurer que, tout en étant d'accord avec vous, ce n'est pas juste la région d'Ottawa-Carleton ; il y a évidemment Prescott et Russell et le nord de l'Ontario qui subissent ce genre de problème-là.

Vous avez rencontré les principaux représentants municipaux ; j'espère bien que vous vous êtes attardés aussi à rencontrer spécifiquement ceux et celles qui représentent les municipalités frontalières qui sont particulièrement visées par ce problème-là.

Je pourrais passer pas mal plus de temps, mais je voulais souligner que mes collègues d'Ottawa-Est et de Mississauga-Ouest ont assisté récemment au Sommet de la construction qui a eu lieu à Montréal et je peux vous assurer qu'ils ont noté une grande tension présente entre le gouvernement du Québec et les syndicats là-bas.

Donc, je vous encourage, plutôt que de présenter des projets de loi 80 et d'autres projets antisyndicaux, d'apporter votre projet de loi pour la première, deuxième et troisième lecture et même la sanction royale avant Noël.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise in response to the statement by the Minister of Education and Training. While clearly this is something that has been a major problem for some time and we would have liked to have seen this action earlier, I do want to say to the minister that what is set out here is something that we will support.

Over the course of the last year, in terms of our own review within the Ontario Liberal Party with respect to education, I want to read out the conclusions we have come to, because I think there is a very strong consensus out there that we need to take very firm action. This is from our annual general meeting of just a few weeks ago, which was the culmination of those discussions over the past year:

"The Ontario Liberal Party is committed to zero tolerance of violence and abusive acts in our schools. That being said, administrators and teachers alone cannot change the violence, abusive language, unacceptable actions and disrespect that are all too common in some schools. This change requires a concerted and cooperative effort from everyone involved, parents, students, community representatives and educators. These combined efforts must be based on a commitment to enforce zero tolerance for such behaviour within our school system."

We then went on to set out a number of initiatives that should be brought forward -- I will be passing those on to the minister -- and I think can be encompassed within the statement you made and the course of action you're setting out.

There are two specific things, Minister, that I would urge you to look at very carefully:

First of all, in order to ensure that there is zero tolerance and that the police are able to act effectively, working with those in the education system, the resources need to be there, the services need to be there. I think you're going to have to discuss with your colleague the Solicitor General ways of ensuring that in fact those resources are there.

Secondly, for those young people who are going to be removed from school, when we were dealing with Bill 4 in the Legislature last spring, we set out clearly the responsibility of school boards to find help for those young people. We've got to ensure that this happens.

The final comment: Let's get moving on the integration of children and youth services. That's critical to making sure there really isn't any violence in our schools.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): To the content of the statement today by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, we want to say well done. It's about time.

To the Liberals, who ignored the resolution of the member for Carleton and themselves boycotted the vote; to the member for Wilson Heights, who was minister of trade for so long and didn't have enough guts -- as this minister has demonstrated, they had enough guts to finally act. I say to the minister, well done; and I say shame on you, member for Wilson Heights; shame on you, party; shame on you, caucus members.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can you advise whether or not the Premier of the province has been to see the Lieutenant Governor? Has the election been officially called or is Mr Harris out to lunch again?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It would be helpful if the leader would direct his comments to the Chair.

1420

Mr Harris: I might add that in her statement the minister might have congratulated the member for Carleton, might have congratulated the member for Don Mills and might have congratulated all the municipalities.

These two members tirelessly gave her their efforts, encouraged the municipalities to come forward with the resolutions -- and the municipalities did come forward with the resolutions; they've been pouring in -- travelled to municipalities all over this province. My congratulations to the municipalities which supported their call. My only comment is that we made the same representations to the Liberals, and they ignored us for five years.

In your statement you indicated that you are working to reduce impediments to jobs and economic growth. I would simply say that in this aspect I may come to some sense of agreement with my colleagues of inaction to the right of me, and that is that the single largest impediment to jobs and to economic growth in Ontario is actually not the Quebec labour laws but the New Democratic Party government.

The best thing the minister could do to encourage employment, growth and investment in this province would be to convince the Premier to visit the Lieutenant Governor and call for an election today. That indeed would be the best thing you can do.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I also wish to respond to the Minister of Education. We are disappointed with the announcement today. The Safe School Task Force was formed three years ago to deal with this issue, and the inaction on the part of this minister has really been distressful.

My party released a document over a year ago, New Directions, Volume II, in which we stated, "All school boards should establish and implement guidelines and enforcement policies for ensuring 'zero tolerance' of violence in schools" -- in all schools.

The problem with what you've done today is you've encouraged, a year or two or three years too late, schools to develop their own policies in isolation. At the same time, there is no province-wide policy to deal with this, and there needs to be. There is a vacuum crying out for a province-wide policy.

Police chiefs were told school violence is a major problem in the 1990s by the international association of police chiefs. Why is your government only responding now?

Another question, and the real question: In the vacuum of province-wide policy, when individual schools and boards are coming forward with zero tolerance, where is it that these students will go? Why is there going to be one policy for one board and perhaps a different policy for another board? This is the problem with what you've announced today.

You've talked about the policy on reporting violent incidents to police and the ministry. This should have been in place a long time ago. You talked about the statistics that need to be gathered. Before you can come up with the provincial strategy, you need the statistics. So you're telling them, "We want the strategy today, and then we'll begin to collect the statistics." That's not good enough. We should have been collecting the statistics all along.

The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario has been lobbying the government to make it mandatory that violent incidents are reported. You've ignored that for a number of years, and now we don't have the statistics necessary for many of the boards to be able to respond appropriately.

We think it's better than nothing, which is what we got from the Liberals for five years. However, I want to tell you that it is very little, it is too late and it is not well coordinated.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Treasurer. For several weeks now, at the request of our caucus, the finance and economic affairs committee has been hearing details of the burgeoning underground economy. It is estimated that $675 million in revenue is lost on the sale of alcohol and tobacco alone.

The Ontario Provincial Police today revealed that the task force set up to tackle the smuggling problem in Cornwall confiscated some 30,000 cartons of cigarettes over the past five weeks. This may seem to be an impressive number, but it pales in comparison to the 50,000 cartons of cigarettes that the police estimate are smuggled across the border at Cornwall every day. This means that every night smugglers are making a million dollars in profit in smuggled cigarettes alone.

The police today told the committee that they are trying to manage an elephant with a mouse. I ask you, Minister, what are you prepared to do to deal with this problem?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'll try to sort out in my mind some time in the future that analogy about the mouse.

I do want to respond to the leader of the official opposition in a serious way, because it is a serious problem facing Ontario and indeed every other province in Canada. I have tried to follow the deliberations at the standing committee dealing with the underground economy as best as I can. I am very much aware of the approximate size of the underground economy, in particular as it affects some key products such as tobacco and alcohol. It is a problem.

It's not enough simply to be aware of the problem. We simply must work together with the federal government, and in our case the Quebec government, in an attempt to stop some of the underground economy and stop some of the smuggling.

As I indicated a week or so ago, I think it was to the member for Renfrew, we have jurisdiction over some areas of the problem, and over others, such as the actual act of smuggling, we don't have jurisdiction. That's a federal jurisdiction. That does not mean to say we shouldn't be making every effort to do what we can to reduce the underground economy. We are taking some measures, and I'll be making a statement in the next week or so, which will go a little further to make sure that we're doing what we can to --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- enforce the laws of the province.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, if you have indeed been following the proceedings of the committee closely, you will know that while the concern about tobacco and alcohol is a significant one and a large part of the problem, it is by no means the entire problem, and that while enforcement is important, it is not the whole answer.

I trust that you are following the proceedings enough to be prepared to deal with the entire issue. If you are following the proceedings, you'll be aware that the Consumers' Association of Canada, when it came before the committee, said that it had no problem in identifying what was another part of the problem. They said that consumers are trying to avoid taxes because they believe the government is squandering the billions of dollars it now collects. The consumers' association said that consumers have lost faith in the system.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Read the whole Hansard, Lyn. Read the whole testimony.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: We bring examples of waste and inefficiency to this Legislature day after day, and in every instance you dismiss them as exaggeration and partisanship.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oxford.

Mrs McLeod: I ask you today, as we deal with this very serious problem, do you understand that when taxpayers hear about Michael Decter's spending, when they hear about the sweetheart deal that Robin Sears got in Tokyo, that further erodes their confidence in the system? Do you understand that every time the government wastes the taxpayers' dollars, consumers and taxpayers are outraged?

Hon Mr Laughren: I indicated in my first response that this is a serious matter, and it is. If I could be so bold as to venture an opinion, the leader of the official opposition does her cause no good whatsoever when she engages in that kind of virtually irrelevant partisanship that has nothing to do with the underground economy itself; absolutely nothing.

I believe that the underground economy is a serious problem. When she talks about reducing taxes, for example, I asked for some information on what happened in New Brunswick when they lowered their taxes on cigarettes. They lowered their taxes on cigarettes by, as I recall, about 27% of the taxes on cigarettes, and their total revenues on cigarettes dropped by 22% -- total revenues.

The drain on our revenues is what I think bothers a lot of us, because when somebody doesn't pay a tax they should, somebody else picks up the difference. My point to the leader of the official opposition is that simply reducing taxes is not the only solution, and in the end very often we'll end up losing more revenues than we are through smuggling.

1430

That is not the only aspect of smuggling that's wrong. There is lawlessness associated with smuggling and I don't disagree with those who say that simply to put it in terms of lost dollars is not to address the problem in its full context. I don't disagree with that. We will continue to monitor it and, as I said, I will be making a statement within the week in this House that will go some way towards addressing the problem.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, the minister just did it again. He's treating what we believe is a very legitimate and serious problem as being simply partisanship. I can tell this minister that when I talk to people out in the communities of this province, lack of confidence that their tax dollars are being well spent is a part of their anger and their frustration and it is part of this problem. Minister, there is no question that taxes are also part of the problem.

It's interesting that you refer to the example of New Brunswick where they lowered taxes and they had some lower tax revenue. It's certainly the opposite of what's happened here in this province because you have raised taxes higher every year. In fact, in total you've raised taxes to the tune of $3 billion over the past three years and yet your revenues have also declined. They've declined by $2 billion in spite of $3 billion in increased taxes. Surely this is clear evidence that you have driven taxes in this province up so high that you are driving people into the underground economy to avoid paying their taxes. They feel they cannot take it any more.

If you are prepared to deal with the problem, will you at least acknowledge that the taxes you have raised are part of the problem and will you commit today to holding the line on any new taxes or tax increases?

Hon Mr Laughren: The underground economy, particularly in a couple of areas such as cigarettes and alcohol, has grown in the last couple of years very substantially. Using those two areas, we did not increase taxes on cigarettes or alcohol in either of the last two budgets.

For the leader of the official opposition, given the taxes they raised in the five years they were in office, to accuse us of raising taxes really lacks credibility. For the leader of the official opposition to say that what we should be doing is reducing taxes on cigarettes and on alcohol I find very, very strange in view --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the leader of the official opposition is saying, "No, don't lower taxes on cigarettes and alcohol," I wish she'd make that perfectly clear, because that's sure the message I'm getting. She's saying, "Reduce taxes on cigarettes and alcohol," taxes that pay for the essential services that you are calling for day after day after day in this Legislature.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I realize that you cannot force the members opposite to answer the question that was asked, but I do hope the minister was not suggesting that the entire underground economy is cigarettes and alcohol, because it is surely much broader than that.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday you said you did not know how much the credit rating downgrade was going to cost the taxpayers of this province, although I understand you did suggest that it would not have a major impact on your borrowing costs. Yet in an earlier memo to the finance committee your ministry staff said that every downgrading of the province's credit rating would increase borrowing costs by 0.25%. If our calculations are correct, this means $25 million in new costs for every $10 billion of borrowing.

Surely, as Minister of Finance for this province, you knew exactly how much the downgrading was going to cost the taxpayers of this province, or did you simply think that $25 million this year was not worth mentioning? Will you tell us today how many millions of dollars the downgrade in your credit rating is going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I think that is a fair question, because it's certainly true that as a jurisdiction's credit gets downgraded there is a cost associated with that. It's not simply in dollars; it's accessibility to capital as well.

But I do believe that there are a lot of numbers being thrown around which have very little, if any, basis in fact whatsoever.

I wonder if you'd allow me, Mr Speaker, to use an example. We sold a deutsche mark bond issue yesterday; two thirds of it is sold already. In that issue, what's known as the spread is roughly a 60 to 64 point spread over federal Treasury bonds. In July, when we last did an equivalent 10-year issue, the spread was 70 points when we had a higher credit rating.

I'm not suggesting that lowering the credit rating means it's cheaper to borrow money; that's simply not the case. But here's a case in this particular issue where it's costing us less to borrow than it did on the 10-year bond issue that we sold in July. So it's impossible to pinpoint precisely what a downgrade costs, but I don't deny that a downgrade is not a good thing and, in the long run, does cost the province more money, but nobody can tell me exactly how much that is.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I do refer you to the memo from your finance department to our committee. Minister, yesterday you also said that you were surprised at the credit downrating and you said that it was unwarranted. I have to wonder, Minister: Where's the surprise?

Surely you were not surprised that credit agencies understood why the province's revenues were down because they understood what the impact of the $2 billion in taxes in your last budget was on this economy. Is it a surprise to you that the credit rating agencies would be concerned that your deficit is hundreds of millions of dollars more than you expected? Are you surprised that they saw through the attempts to hide the real financial picture of this province by moving debt off the books? Are you surprised that they have lost all confidence in your ability to meet your budget targets? I ask you, Minister: Where's the surprise?

Hon Mr Laughren: What the leader of the official opposition is saying is simply not correct. It is simply not correct. The loss of revenues that triggered our increase in deficit this year came from the final compilation of the 1992 income tax collection returns that the federal government passes on to us now in 1993. For the leader of the official opposition to say that the taxes in 1993 caused a drop in income tax revenues from 1992 simply makes no sense whatsoever.

The reason I was disappointed, unhappy and surprised at the downgrading by the credit rating agencies was because we have worked very, very hard on controlling our expenditures. For the first time in almost 50 years this government will spend less money this year than in the previous year. You never accomplished that and the Tories never accomplished that when they were in office.

Mrs McLeod: If I have followed the reasoning of the Minister of Finance, he seems to be saying that he really doesn't believe that increases in taxes in this province are having a negative effect on the economy, that they are putting people out of business, that they are putting people out of work, that they are affecting consumer confidence, as well as personal income tax of people who are no longer employed because there are no jobs. Surely this minister can make the relationship between tax increases and the effect on the economy, and the loss of revenue was certainly one of the reasons for that credit downgrading.

Minister, the credit downgrading simply reflects the fact that people are concerned about this province's inability to manage its finances and the effect that that has on the economy, and I do bring it back to the issue of taxes. I bring it back to the fact that we had $3 billion in tax increases and we have seen a $2-billion drop in revenue. I cannot believe that you are still considering bringing in new taxes.

1440

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has conducted a survey and found that 20% of small businesses will be hit by the new tax on businesses that you still propose to bring in, and I say to you today that this province and this province's businesses and the people of this province who need jobs cannot afford to have this new tax.

Will you not agree to cancel your plans for this new tax on the small businesses of this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: There are a couple of points I'd like to make in response to the leader of the official opposition. First of all, the leader of the official opposition is saying that we should not have the deficit as high as it is. Secondly, we should not have raised $2 billion in taxes this year, which means we should have cut programs and jobs by the tune of $2 billion more. That would have cost somewhere around 40,000 to 50,000 jobs in the province.

You tell me what that does to a fragile economic recovery. You tell me how that helps us engage in an economic recovery. As a matter of fact, it would be counterproductive.

Finally, if the leader of the official opposition is suggesting that the corporate minimum tax -- I think that's what she was referring to -- which we are determined to introduce this session, is a tax on small business, she is dead wrong; she's absolutely dead wrong.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, at a task force hearing before members of this Legislature, the chairman of the Ontario Medical Association section on radiation oncology, Dr Tom McCowan, said that Ontario needs the equivalent of at least two new major cancer centres in order to keep up with demand.

Minister, you and I both know that in these tough economic times that need is going to be very difficult to meet. Just how do you intend to ensure that cancer patients in Ontario do not go without very timely treatment?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I have talked about many times in this House, we all acknowledge, unfortunately, the growing need for cancer treatment, the growing need for the technologists and the physicians who are specialists who can deal with the growing rate of cancer. What that has said to our government and what we have been doing is to begin to plan for the future, because we believe that unless you do have a long-range plan and unless that plan looks not only at the treatment but also at the support systems that are required and also at what you can do to prevent cancer, then you will not be able to meet the demand.

I hope the leader of the third party recognizes that with the introduction of our anti-tobacco legislation this week we took a major step towards prevention, which is part of that overall plan.

Mr Harris: The minister talks about the growing incidence of cancer; we agree. The minister understands, I think, that with an aging population, at a time when we are solving so many other problems, cancer is significantly on the rise and, as the population ages, it is on the rise.

There has been a lack of planning, we agree with you, over the last eight and a half years, particularly in this province, to deal with this crisis. At the task force hearings yesterday, we heard that Sick Kids has the capability of performing 70 to 80 bone marrow transplants a year but it has a quota of only 48. We heard at the task force that there is capacity for 190 a year in Ontario but only funding for 120. So at a time when we know cancer is on the increase, we see the resources for cancer on the decline.

So even with the lack of planning, which we acknowledge, over the last eight years, the capacity exists for far more than you are doing. And I would ask you again, Madam Minister, even though members of the Liberal Party and the NDP back bench don't seem to care, what are you going to do to meet this growing need and demand?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am a little confused by the question because I don't know whether the member was there at the meeting. I know some members and the Leader of the Opposition were, but from the people I've spoken to who were at this particular event, it was Princess Margaret, not Sick Kids, that was identifying some shortfalls and some needs.

But I want to say to the leader of the third party and to those people who have expressed concern that in fact, in 1990 only 138 bone marrow transplants were performed in this province and this year we anticipate that there will be 300 bone marrow transplants performed. So there has been a considerable increase, not perhaps as much as Princess Margaret would have liked, but we believe our cancer strategy has to encompass the entire province and that as we enhance the capacity in other cancer treatment centres, then people get that treatment closer to their own homes and where they need to be. But there has been a number of improvements and better instances of management and coordination that have allowed us to increase the number of bone marrow transplants that have been performed.

Mr Harris: Madam Minister, it's a big difference between what you're saying, 300, and what Don Carlow, chief executive officer, Princess Margaret Hospital, says, that it only has the funding to do 120.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: No. As the minister wishes to interject, Princess Margaret says its capacity is 70 to 80 and it is only doing 48. You see, your numbers don't add up with what the medical practitioners and the head of the hospital are telling us.

More important than that, we are all hearing stories coming from our ridings of people who are put on waiting lists. We understand how difficult and traumatic it is when one and one's family are affected by cancer and a bone marrow transplant.

I have a constituent who has been told that the optimum time for her bone marrow transplant is December and that she is delayed until January at least. What is it you would like me to tell my constituent and other constituents when there are 27 on the waiting list ahead of her? The hospital says it's going to do 48. What am I tell her as she goes home for Christmas, trying to wait, and hoping and wishing she will be bumped up ahead of the list for January when the doctor says her optimum time is December? Can you tell me what I should say to her?

Hon Mrs Grier: I hope you'll say to her that I think all of us recognize the growing need, unfortunately, for cancer treatment; that there have been enormous strides made both in the provision of that capacity and, as well, in changes in protocol that have made shifts within the system; that we all recognize that the system is treatment and it is support systems and it is transportation and it is prevention, and that as we plan we have to look at all of that.

You can also tell those people waiting for bone marrow transplants that there have been enormous strides made in a coordination of our bone marrow transplant programs so that we have a network, and we have put a great deal of additional funding, in fact $500,000, into the unrelated bone marrow donor registry so it can expand from 63,000 to almost 100,000, which means the matches can be made more quickly and more cost-effectively, because at this point only 26% of the matches are made in Canada and that costs us money.

As we look at all points of the system, there are no quick and easy answers to this very real tragedy, but I hope you will assure your constituents that everybody in the system, from specialists to hospitals to ministry officials, understands the problem and is working in a coordinated way to address it.

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: I'm not sure the Treasurer wants to hear this.

It's 49 days since the murder of Sudbury police constable Joe MacDonald. We know that following that, an individual by the name of Clinton Suzack was charged with the murder.

The chair of the Ontario parole board, in response to the charges against Mr Suzack, who was out on release from the Ontario parole board, was quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying Mr Suzack's record was "not serious," despite the fact that he had 30 convictions related to violent crimes, had an outstanding warrant from the province of Alberta, and that they had a letter from the Sault police services board saying that Mr Suzack posed a menace to society. Mr Wadel also said -- a very frightening remark -- that there was nothing unusual about the decision to release Mr Suzack.

1450

In terms of my question, we know the board is making something like 3,000 parole board decisions per year, approximately 57 per week. Now that we know the results of this study, which you're not prepared to release, Mr Minister, could you indicate to the House, to the people of Ontario, to the MacDonald family and the people of Sudbury what action you're going to take in respect to the comments and the activities of Mr Wadel?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As I said yesterday, I have received the report of the investigator, which dealt with all aspects of a particular hearing that took place by the parole board of Ontario. I have received that report. I have also received from the Attorney General's office very clear, detailed, succinct directions that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the report or any actions or recommendations that may be contained within it.

I can say to the honourable member that the freedom of information act does provide for me to talk with proper officials about the report in terms of any appropriate action that needs to be taken. I would say as directly as I can that in having those discussions, the actions that may be appropriate, as contained in the report, I am taking. Beyond that, I am very, very reluctant, based on the advice I have received from the Attorney General's office, to talk about any aspect of this or any other particular case.

Mr Runciman: I've seen their justification for this view, and my response to that is that they have searched, desperately searched, for ways to justify non-release of this report.

We have an unprecedented statement of concern, of which I'm going to send a copy to the minister. It's from the chief of police in Sudbury, Richard Zanibbi. I'm quoting briefly: "If the government is privy to information and is withholding it until the conclusion of these murder trials, which likely will be a minimum of one year, how many other premature or questionable releases will occur in the intervening period? The government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to address this matter immediately in the best interests and safety of all citizens."

He also goes on to comment -- and I want to say that Mr Suzack was in personal contact with Mr Wadel, the chair of the parole board, and Mr Wadel, when asked this question by Alan Cairns of the Toronto Sun, denied it. Now the chief has substantiated the fact that Suzack was in personal contact. We have every reason to believe that it was a serious error made by the parole board that cost a police officer his life. In my view, this is a coverup that has to end --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member please place a question.

Mr Runciman: -- in the public interest. I ask the minister to reassess his position and release this report.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I have said from the outset of this matter that it was my intention that the report and the findings and any resulting actions would be made public. I have not deviated from that position. What I have done, as a responsible minister of the crown, given the fact that there are matters before the courts, is to send that report to the Attorney General's office, which is responsible for providing legal advice to ministers. I have received from their criminal law division very clear direction that it would be inappropriate for me to comment or for me to release the report.

Having said that, when the court proceedings are concluded, and given freedom of information considerations, it is still my intention, and I would hope of anybody else who may be in this position when that trial may conclude, that indeed that report would still be made public.

Mr Runciman: That's a crock, to say the least. It's going to be over a year before that trial occurs, and to suggest that he's going to release it --

The Speaker: The experienced and often eloquent member for Leeds-Grenville has a much larger vocabulary.

Mr Runciman: If that offends the House, I'll withdraw the offending word. But it is clear there was an error made here, a fatal error, and what this government is doing is using the alleged rights of the accused to cover up the grievous error of the parole board that resulted in the death of a police officer -- nothing less.

It's completely outrageous. In my view, if they violated the terms of reference of this study in respect of this trial, white those matters out and release it to the public. We're talking about a parole board decision, nothing affecting the trial in Sudbury.

I reaffirm my view that I stated at the outset, that Wadel should be fired, and if the minister is not prepared to put the facts on the table, he should resign. He has a larger responsibility here: it's in the public interest and for community safety.

His three colleagues from the Sudbury area apparently are going to be silent on this issue. We in the Conservative Party are not going to be silent. I'm telling you that right now. We're going to press this issue. I ask the minister once again to stand up on behalf of the public, not his own political interests, and release this report.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The honourable member, regardless of the tirade, knows very well that if I were to take any action --

Mr Runciman: Baloney. Don't tell me what I already know.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville, please come to order.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- that would result in court proceedings being --

Interjection.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Do you want the answer, yes or no?

Mr Runciman: I don't want that kind of baloney. That's all it is.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville, please come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Christopherson: As I was attempting to say, if I indeed did anything, particularly with advice very clear from the Attorney General, that would have the effect of prejudicing --

Mr Runciman: It was political advice from Michael Code, and you know it.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville, please come to order.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- or affecting a matter before the court, then the honourable member across the way --

Mr Runciman: Michael Code's your hand-picked appointee. Don't give me that.

The Speaker: Would the member for Leeds-Grenville please come to order. Had the minister completed his response?

Hon Mr Christopherson: The bottom line is that if I did anything that would affect a court case, the volume coming from across the way would be twice as loud as it is now.

ECONOMY OF NIAGARA REGION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. In 1991 the unemployment rate in the Niagara region of this province was 11.3%. This month the unemployment rate in the Niagara region stands at over 15%. Not only is this the highest unemployment level in Ontario, it is one of the highest of any urban area in the country.

I know that the minister is fond of reciting the list of government economic programs, but I would ask the minister: If these programs are so successful, why have they not helped the unemployed people of Niagara region?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): There are programs that are at work across the province and in the Niagara area. The leader of the official opposition will know that programs -- programs she doesn't support, in fact, like Jobs Ontario Training. There are brokers active in the Niagara area where those kinds of programs are making sure that people come off social assistance into opportunities to train for new employment; Jobs Ontario Homes, through which housing is being built.

The problem in the Niagara area, I will agree with the member opposite, is very, very significant and one that we need to work together with local levels of government and participants from the community economic development field in that area to try and address.

The member will know there is a task force that has been working under the auspices of the office of the regional chair with which our ministry has been cooperating. We've been looking at the decline in the manufacturing sector and how we can address some of the opportunities, having identified some of the strengths and weaknesses in that sector, to work with that community. You'll know we've done things to ensure building on a program that in fact her government introduced with the wineries, to ensure increased help in the wine industry and tourism.

There are a number of areas where we need to continue to work. I will agree with her assertion that it is a significant problem, and I think we are taking steps working with the region to try and address it.

1500

Mrs McLeod: I don't believe the people of Niagara region are going to be particularly assured by, again, a list of the programs that simply don't seem to be helping. I don't think that offers them any explanation for why the people of Niagara region should be experiencing one of the highest unemployment rates of any urban region in the country. Nor does it provide any reassurance or explanation of why over the next four months at least 1,600 more people are going to be laid off in this region of the province.

Minister, I wonder if you understand that the $3 billion in new taxes, that the $1 billion in new fees, that a 25% rate increase in the Workers' Compensation Board affecting thousands of businesses in the province, are all factors that are killing jobs in the province of Ontario. When will you understand that your economic programs will never work when every other policy your government puts in place kills business and jobs in this province?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, the leader of the official opposition states things that I believe are quite incorrect. That's very unfortunate, because I believe it misleads the public, not just in Niagara but in the entire province in terms --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Ah, ah.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Aren't we getting a little close?

Hon Ms Lankin: If I said that incorrectly or in a way that's offensive, what I mean to say is that I think it presents information that would lead the public to misunderstand the real situation. I don't know how to say that without offending people; I'll give my best attempt.

The leader of the official opposition, to be responsible, I believe must state the facts correctly. If you look at the competitiveness reports that have been recently released, you will in fact find that in Ontario, for the manufacturing sector, for example, which is so important to the Niagara area, the combined corporate tax levels for the manufacturing sector are now lower than in any of the Great Lakes states.

Let's get the information correct. Let's understand that. Let's look at the cost of health care and realize that we have a tremendous advantage. Let's deal with areas that are problems, like workers' compensation rates.

I'll just say with respect to the Niagara area two more things: We have continued with government relocation programs to that area, where we've cancelled them in other areas of the province, in recognition of the rates of unemployment. Lastly, this is the exact reason why cabinet has established a jobs committee to look at the regional distribution of jobs and employment programs. This is the exact thing that the official opposition makes partisan in nature. Understanding levels of unemployment and regional differences is very important in terms of distribution of government programs.

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I'm asking this question on behalf of the thousands of new home buyers in Ontario, who have special concerns after January 1 of next year, and on behalf of our caucus and our critic for Housing, Mrs Marland, the member for Mississauga South. We are being deluged with requests for action on this issue.

December 31, 1993, marks the end of the very successful Ontario home ownership savings plan. OHOSP has given many first-time home buyers a break on the purchase of a new home. Research from the Ontario Real Estate Association indicates that since the program's creation in 1988, over 248,000 plans have been opened, and of that number, 204,000 have been closed to purchase homes. For many first-time home buyers, this home ownership program means the difference in buying and not buying a home.

There's a great concern from realtors and home buyers that you may pull the plug on this program. Minister, are you prepared to extend the deadline of the Ontario home ownership program and will you ensure that the program will continue after December 31 of this year?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Markham asks a timely and appropriate question, because the OHOSP program, the Ontario home ownership savings plan program, is scheduled to die on December 31 of this year. I am looking at it quite intently these days.

The program is not without its problems, I must say. There are two components to it. One is the savings part, in which a tax credit is granted by the taxpayers of the province, and the other is a forgiveness of the land transfer tax, which is also a contribution by the taxpayers of this province. There are some problems associated with the land transfer tax component of that plan.

Having said that, though, I do think it has served a useful purpose over the years in providing some incentive for first-time home buyers to put aside money and buy their first home. At this point, I have to tell the member for Markham that no decision has been made, and what I'm doing is looking at the problems that are associated with the program before I make a final decision.

Mr Cousens: In the spirit of helping those people who are looking for assistance and support, I encourage the minister and feel there is some hope in the answer you've given, that inasmuch as you haven't made a final decision, you may well have reason to look at it.

It really is significant when you think that it costs approximately $50 million annually with $25 million in tax credits and another $25 million to the province for land transfer tax refunds. Yet this cost represents but 5% of your government's annual spending on subsidized non-profit housing in Ontario.

By continuing the Ontario home ownership savings program, we're giving many individuals that first chance to buy a new home. The benefit of this program to home owners is great, and this ownership program makes or breaks the decision for many to buy.

We look at the numbers and we realize that some 48% of all home sales in the first nine months of this year were to first-time buyers. This program makes good economic sense and the benefits far outweigh the cost of the ownership program.

We genuinely ask you, Mr Minister, to look at this, and to do it in time so that we can make an announcement before we rise for the Christmas vacation. I ask you again, very sincerely, if you'll commit that you'll bring forward an announcement to this House at the very earliest opportunity.

Hon Mr Laughren: The numbers the member for Markham uses are correct. It does cost us about $50 million a year, which is not an inconsequential amount of money. I'm sure he and his colleagues in the Tory party would agree that $50 million cost to the taxpayers is a substantial amount of money. One does not automatically approve the continuation of a program that costs $50 million. That is a lot of money in this province, given all the other pressures that we have.

I know the member for Markham appreciates the importance of $50 million. I'm sure he listens to his leader day after day talking about the need to get our expenditures down and get the deficit down. I know he would agree with me that before a program such as this is continued, we must take a very close look at it, and that's exactly what we're doing.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Finance. In recent months, interest rates have come down to levels that some businesses would consider affordable. However, many small businesses in my riding and elsewhere in this province are having considerable difficulty obtaining operating credit from the banks.

Small businesses have to have lines of credit with banks. They have difficulty increasing their limits, with the result that they cannot expand their businesses. Although the cost of credit has come down, its availability has not improved and in some situations has become worse.

This government has made a policy commitment to help alternative financial institutions, such as the credit unions and caisses populaires, and the minister's parliamentary assistant had a task force about two years ago to make recommendations to implement a policy to help credit unions and caisses populaires to expand their lines of credit. Could the minister tell us today what policy changes concerning credit unions are being actively considered and when can we expect concrete implementation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member asks an important question. I must give credit to two people as we've tried to reform the caisses populaire and credit union legislation in this province, which has been outdated to say the least. Those two people are Brian Charlton, the former Minister of Financial Institutions, and the other is Steve Owens, the parliamentary assistant from Scarborough Centre, who has done a lot of work on this.

Last year Brian Charlton, who is presently Chair of Management Board, launched a major reform process on the caisses populaires and the credit unions to make them more competitive and more up to date in the changing world of financial institutions. We said then that as part of the whole financial institutions reform process, credit unions and caisses populaires would take precedence. I can tell the member that it is our intention to introduce comprehensive legislation before we adjourn for the Christmas break.

1510

Mr Hayes: I ask the minister if he could elaborate somewhat on these policies. How will they help small businesses in this province, which desperately need a line of credit to succeed?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't disagree with the member at all. When we were doing the reform and going through the consultation process we heard that message loudly and clearly, that small business faces problems in accessing capital from the large financial institutions.

In our reforms it is our intention to expand credit union lending capacity, including the capacity to make commercial loans. We think that's going to be a major step forward. We're going to allow credit unions and their central organizations to work together to undertake lending. We're going to enable them to serve a broader membership base, which can include small businesses, I might add. Also, we're going to enable credit unions to raise capital from new sources so that they can strengthen their ability to serve the local community in which they're located.

I thank the member for the question and I can tell him that it is a very high priority with this government. We intend to move with dispatch.

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. I have sent him over a sheet, the heading of which is Youth Responds to the Royal Commission on Learning. What this deals with is that evidently in the month of January next there will be a video that is being prepared by TVO with respect to comments that secondary school students have about the education system, and on that I think no one has any disagreement.

But this letter or statement plus questionnaire has been sent to me by parents who feel that the language that is within it is in places offensive and that the subject matter in various questions deals with sexuality and pregnancy and HIV, questions that parents have a concern and interest in. It appears that this particular document was sent directly to schools or to students and that there was no parental input whatsoever. That, in the minds of those parents who have been in touch with me, is what they find most galling, and in some cases they have expressed the view that it is offensive.

Minister, are you aware of this particular questionnaire? Do you know if there was parental involvement in designing the questions? Would you not agree that without that parental involvement, indeed some of these questions could be found to be offensive to a number of parents in Ontario?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I just saw the questionnaire and I appreciate the member's sending it to me. It's not clear to me who even put the questionnaire out, whether it was TVO. It doesn't look like it's the royal commission, because it's not on royal commission stationery. If it came from TVOntario, I would certainly encourage the member to speak directly to TVOntario. I will certainly pass his concerns on, and anyone else's concerns. But it's not something the government put out and it's really unclear who did put it out.

Mr Beer: If I might, I would say to the minister that this did come from TVOntario and that the phone number at the bottom is a number that relates to TVOntario.

My concern here is simply this: At a very difficult time, when parents are trying to deal with their sons and daughters around difficult issues of moral values, which certainly these address, and around issues of language, I think that where we are dealing with a government agency or board or commission that is carrying out this work, there is a responsibility on government to make sure we are sensitive to the concerns of parents who, I think the minister would agree, would find some of this, the substantive questions that are being asked, difficult for them to understand when they see that as being primarily a parental responsibility.

I would ask the minister simply this: Would you not agree that where government or government agencies are doing this, we do have a responsibility to make sure that we understand parental concerns? Especially given your creation of the parent council and your concern that parents be involved, would you not speak with your colleagues and with government boards and agencies, that when this sort of thing is being done, there must in fact be a sensitivity to parents and parents' involvement in the education of their young people?

Hon Mr Cooke: Everybody agrees that there has to be sensitivity. I will pass on the member's concerns and any concerns I might have to the proper authorities at TVOntario.

I think the member will also totally agree that he would not want this government or any other government to give direct instructions to TVOntario. That question has been debated in this place many times. It's not a propaganda agency for this government or any other government, and therefore has to be treated with a great deal of sensitivity.

I will take your comments and make sure that they're brought to the officials at TVO.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. This week the minister showed the sleazy tactics to which the NDP government will resort in order to pass a very unpopular piece of legislation. I refer of course to the decision to lump Bill 90 in with the long-awaited legislation to regulate private retirement and rest homes.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Is "sleazy" an appropriate word? Margaret, I thought you were --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Downsview, come to order.

Mrs Marland: There are sound reasons why most municipalities and thousands of property owners oppose as-of-right basement apartments. Such valid concerns as absentee landlords, overcrowding, parking shortages, inadequate infrastructure and property tax hikes must be addressed.

Minister, you are putting thousands and thousands of people who oppose Bill 90 in the position of also having to oppose changes to prevent the abuse of vulnerable people in some unregulated homes. My question to you is, since this is not fair, will you split Bill 120 into two separate bills, as it should be, and let everyone deal with these two unrelated matters individually?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The answer simply is no. They are not unrelated matters. Both elements of the legislation deal with providing regular protections afforded to all tenants of this province, except for these two categories of residents, to residents of care home residences and also people who are living in apartments in houses, which are currently illegal only by reason of the fact that there are bylaws against the zoning.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Minister, you must realize that there is overwhelming opposition to this legislation from municipalities, from ratepayer organizations, opposition based on the concern that you will be unilaterally, without public hearing, rezoning all single-family homes to duplexes in the province of Ontario.

I have concerns from AMO. I have concerns from municipalities such as Mississauga. Let me tell you what these concerns are about. The concerns are that you are running roughshod over the municipal planning process in Ontario. You have denied sufficient powers of entry to the municipalities to deal with the problems they're going to face. You have forced more people onto the municipalities at a time when you have also cut the grants to those municipalities. This is downloading.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr David Johnson: The question is, the municipalities are asking you to consult with them. Will you at least talk to the municipalities and will you divide this legislation in two so that you can have meaningful discussion with the municipalities about the apartments-in-houses legislation?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The measures in the new legislation which I tabled on Tuesday are going to be the same measures which were introduced in the form of Bill 90 over a year ago. Since Bill 90 was first brought before the Legislature and opened for public consultation, I personally and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and other members of our government have had numerous discussions with council members from all regions of Ontario on the issues involved.

1520

I think there's a good deal of misunderstanding about what the provisions of this legislation will do in terms of the municipalities. We certainly have provided increased powers for municipal inspection, and indeed municipalities are interested to learn that if an apartment is placed in a home, meets health and safety standards and becomes part of a revenue generation process for that property, it does mean that the municipality will have access to increased assessment.

HATS FOR HUNTERS

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last Tuesday during members' statements it was brought to our attention that your ministry's hide-collection hats -- this bright orange hat that I have here -- were purchased outside of this province.

There's no question in my mind that this hide-collection hat program is a good practice, and I'm sure it's one that's supported by all members of this Legislature. However, the negative comments brought forth on this program cause a certain level of concern. I'm sure there are hundreds of people in this province, including myself, who would like to know the answers to the questions that were raised last Tuesday.

What I want to know is, why were these hats purchased outside of Ontario and how does this create jobs for Ontario?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member raises a good question. Traditionally in Ontario the Ministry of Natural Resources acted as the agent for those hunters who had harvested a moose or deer and who wished to make the hide available to artists and artisans. They would bring the hides to the MNR office, MNR would collect them and then forward them to native artists and artists generally across the province who might like to work with leather.

However, this past year we decided that we would no longer do that. The hide collection program has been taken over by the Union of Ontario Indians, and the Union of Ontario Indians now make the decisions as to where they will purchase the hats and what they will do. This is not an MNR program at this time and has not been during the last year.

Mr Abel: If what you say is true, I'd like to know if this would be good for Ontario in the long run.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Hampton: Obviously the Liberal Party does not think that aboriginal enterprise, that enterprise by Indian people, is a serious matter. In fact this is a real business opportunity for Indian people in Ontario. It's a real opportunity for them to take part in what is a very important natural resource for them, and the Ministry of Natural Resources is saving some operating funds on a year-over-year basis, so we think it is a win-win situation.

The Union of Ontario Indians is aware of the sensitivity regarding the manufacture of the hats outside of Canada, and hopefully in the years to follow will be able to act to rectify that.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation and it concerns photo-radar. Yesterday we had the benefit of the stinging critique of the province's privacy commissioner about the several inadequacies and several deficiencies in your photo-radar legislation. Today we're reminded in the press about concerns that the car rental industry has in this province and country about the nightmarish consequences of Bill 47, the photo-radar legislation.

On behalf of the thousands of people who derive their economic activity and their employment from the Canadian car rental business, what can you say that you will do to address the very legitimate concerns that the Ontario section and the Canadian portion of the car rental industry have about your photo-radar legislation?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I have in my hand a letter dated November 24, 1993. The member so rightly, so correctly, referred to parts of the letter yesterday. It is signed by Mr Tom Wright, who is the commissioner.

Sins of omission. I will complete what the member did not choose to say and I quote from that letter: "As legislators, I fully recognize that it is your role to balance the competing interests involved in these amendments and to make a decision which, in your view, is in the public interest."

This is really the focus. This is the crux of the matter. This is exactly what we intend to do, strike a balance and make sure that the rights of individuals are protected at the same time. It's a delicate balance. We are ready for the task. It's called the art of the possible and we shall endeavour to do so.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that the record is correct. There are two items of incorrect information today. I was part of the Liberal task force at Princess Margaret Hospital. Princess Margaret said there are 120 total --

The Speaker: No, no, no. Would the member take her seat. She will know that a member may rise to correct her or his own record, not someone else's. Motions?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps you could help me with this. I didn't hear the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party identify the task force as the Liberal task force on cancer care. Perhaps you could hear better from where you were and were able to identify it as that.

The Speaker: I try to hear every syllable which is uttered in here. I cannot assist the member.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 55 will make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still unidentified. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position in which some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in a classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions."

It's signed by 36 residents of my constituency.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed in its spring budget of 1993 to impose a tax on beer produced by the general public for their own consumption at brew-on-premises facilities in the province of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, will not accept an attempt to tax our own labour and efforts to make our beer and wine at brew-on-premises facilities for our own consumption.

"Further, we feel this attempt is shortsighted and extremely counterproductive. The Ontario government has bowed to pressure from the multinational brewing interests to level the playing field, and in doing so has failed to understand the brew-on-premise industry and the devastating results of this regressive tax.

"Attempts to further tax our own beer and wine will cause business failures and loss of jobs resulting in revenue loss to local and provincial governments. The brew-on-premises facilities we support contribute to our local and provincial economies and represent the true entrepreneurial spirit which will drive our economic growth in the future."

That's signed by a number of constituents from my riding of Simcoe West, and I want to thank Mr David Scott and Mr Mark Boem, the proprietors of Mountain Brew in Collingwood, for their efforts in bringing this issue to my attention. I hope that the government acts on their concerns.

1530

ASSISTIVE DEVICES

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition signed by 55 people from my own riding, but many others from the Niagara Peninsula are represented on this petition. The petition states:

"We, the undersigned, support the Niagara Amputee Association in their cause against the impending changes to the assistant devices program funded by the Ministry of Health."

I am affixing my signature.

TAXATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people who are concerned about provincial policy.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt businesses in Ontario,

"The government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful spending."

I have affixed my signature to this particular petition.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands in the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government's sale plan,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources in the community and the residents there."

I've signed my name to this petition in full support and appreciate all those who are acting on this.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it. We believe that there is an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically over the long term, if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination which is enjoyed by everyone by law now, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, which might include sado-masochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age, sex, we believe that all such references should be removed from the code."

It is signed by 33 residents of my constituency.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government's sale plan,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

This has been signed by people from Scarborough, Don Mills and other parts: Agincourt and Toronto. This adds to the list of almost 250 people who have signed asking the federal government for justice for the people of North Pickering. Thank you. I have affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, who live in your riding" -- that's Brant-Haldimand -- "and attend local churches, ask that you would convey to the Premier of Ontario, the Attorney General of the province of Ontario and the Chair of the standing committee on the administration of justice our concern with the legislation known as Bills 45 and 55.

"We are concerned with the change in the Human Rights Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and with the deletion of the words 'of the opposite sex' from the definition of 'marital status.'

"We are also concerned that Bill 55 could prohibit our freedom to talk about our views on homosexuality and legitimizes a particular conviction and silences debate concerning sexual orientation with criminal consequences for such debate. We believe that these bills make the government more intrusive than is justifiable in a free and democratic society.

"We appreciate your vote against Bill 45 on second reading."

That's signed by 44 constituents from the Dunnville area and is in addition to the petition submitted by 93 residents of the same riding presented earlier. Thank you.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rich rural resources and the community of residents there."

I have signed this petition in full support. I am pleased that there's action taking place and I'm going to be meeting with some of these residents tomorrow.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This petition is to the Legislature of Ontario and it is signed by over 30 people, all from the same street in Scarborough, in support of the North Pickering residents who now face eviction even as we stand, given that this whole process begins on December 1 and that the new federal government must take a look at this, if it's going to help these people.

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan" -- the process ticks down on December 1 --

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

This petition is signed by many, many families from Rochman Boulevard in Scarborough: the Taylors, the McShanes --

Interjection.

Mr Wiseman: It's a little difficult, but it will work -- McClellands, Moores, Traceys, Carpenters, Finlaysons -- I can't read that at all.

The point is that one street finds out about this. They're outraged and they sign the petitions willingly. I also affix my signature and hope that the new government will find its feet on this issue very quickly and help these residents achieve some justice and equity.

1540

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA GESTION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE DE LA CONSTRUCTION

On motion by Mr Mackenzie, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 123, An Act respecting the Construction Industry Workforce / Projet de loi 123, Loi concernant la main-d'oeuvre de l'industrie de la construction.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Just very briefly, the bill deals with the issue of labour mobility and whether or not Ontario construction workers should have the same rights as Quebec construction workers in projects in this province or in the province of Quebec.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

On motion by Mr Allen, on behalf of Mr Cooke, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 125, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): On behalf of the minister, I'm pleased to introduce this bill, the Education Amendment Act, 1993. The amendments being introduced today respond to concerns raised by parents and the public and are aimed at improving the functioning of the education system.

The act will give statutory recognition to the Ontario Parent Council. Recognizing the council in legislation confirms the government's commitment to receiving continuing advice from parents in provincial education policy.

The Education Amendment Act also permits a reduction in the number of trustees to be elected to school boards. Trustees elected by an electoral group for a school board will be permitted, by a majority vote of their members, to decide to reduce the total number of trustees to be elected by the electoral group. This amendment recognizes the discussions by the public and some larger school boards on the possibility of reducing the number of trustees on a board.

The act also deals with two amendments relating to French-language education issues. The first will continue existing authority to establish French-language school boards. If not continued, this power expires on December 31, 1993. The second French-language education amendment deals with establishing French-language sections between elections.

The minister looks forward to hearing comments from the House on these amendments and invites all members to join with the government in support of this legislation.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce a bill today. It's ultimately the combination of work of an intern, Emma Waverman, who served in my office a year ago, and also of Norie Campbell, who is actually in the gallery this afternoon and who also worked on this legislation.

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES ENTENTES PORTANT SUR L'EXTRACTION D'EAU

On motion by Mr Elston, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 126, An Act respecting Water Extraction Agreements / Projet de loi 126, Loi concernant les ententes portant sur l'extraction d'eau.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): The bill actually deals with requiring agreements to be reached between the proponents of taking water at certain sites in municipalities with the host municipality. The requirement first is that there be a certificate to take water issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy and that these agreements are a precedent to taking any water out of the local areas.

There are problems in very many parts of the province with people who take water and have a very temporary presence in the various communities. It's particularly a problem in my riding, but it is not restricted to my riding, and this should help local municipalities deal with the cost of infrastructure and other requirements that are necessary to support the commercial activities around water extraction.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 17:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, the standing committee on resources development shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time on its regularly scheduled meeting days for the purpose of conducting public hearings, each presentation to the committee during public hearings on the bill shall be limited to 20 minutes;

That the committee shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Monday, December 6, 1993. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the abovenoted day. At 5 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a);

That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on resources development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading.

That two hours be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): This motion --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): And now you'd like to explain why you're closing down democracy.

Hon Mr Charlton: No, I'm attempting here to ensure that democracy happens.

Mr Elston: By limiting debate: your style.

Hon Mr Charlton: This time allocation motion is a motion that again I move here today to deal with an obvious divergence of opinion about whether this bill is important enough (a) to hear all of the deputants on --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order: I think the House leaders agreed that we're splitting this time equally between the three caucuses without two-minute responses, and I think it's necessary for you to say that for the clerk to record it as such. Is it?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I will ask the minister. Government House leader, would you like to address that?

Hon Mr Charlton: We are splitting the time, but it's my understanding that's the normal procedure unless we -- no? All right, fair enough. We have an agreement to split the time and that the vote will occur at 6 o'clock.

The Acting Speaker: Could I ask for unanimous consent? Agreed.

1550

Hon Mr Charlton: I sort of lost my train of thought, but I think I was discussing the fact that we have an obvious divergence of opinion on this bill, both about whether this bill is important enough to sit some extra hours to hear all of the deputants who may want to make presentation or representation on this bill, and I guess also a divergence of opinion about whether this bill is important enough to those affected to be passed before we leave here for our Christmas break for the end of the fall session.

That's a fair divergence of opinion and it's a fair debate to have. But at the end of the day, after extensive months and months and months of consultation that the Ministry of Labour and the Minister of Labour have had on this issue, it's our view that, on the one hand, the bill is important enough to hear from all of the deputants, all of those who wish to make representations on this piece of legislation, and, on the other hand, that the legislation is important enough to pass before we leave here this fall.

I've structured here today this time allocation motion, which will allow the committee some extended hearings rather than to just dump this matter out into infinity over the course of another three or four months in committee before we come back next spring to deal with the final passage of this legislation; to allow extended sittings in the committee so that the deputants, those who wish to make representations both for and against this piece of legislation, will have the opportunity to do so before the standing committee on resources development; and then to bring the process to an end and to ensure that this legislation is put in place before we leave here this Christmas.

I think it's fair for those who oppose the bill to take the position that this motion will limit discussion. On the other hand, it is true that this bill has been out in the public domain for over a year now and there has been extensive discussion on all sides of the issues around this bill for I think about 15 or 16 months now since its introduction here in the Legislature. We can have that debate about whether this time allocation motion at this time in fact limits democracy, but it's our view in the government that it's time this legislation was in place; and that for those who find the provisions of this legislation necessary to protect their role as local unions and the membership in those local unions, that that protection become an effective reality for them in as short a time as we can deliver that.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the member for Brampton North.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Brampton South, Madam Speaker. I keep getting moved to the north. It's cold enough in the south.

I find it interesting. I've been in this Legislature almost nine years coming up in May, and I'm not about to announce my retirement, but I do believe that when the New Democratic Party was over on this side in opposition it didn't have the same degree of thought in how we should get things done quickly. In fact, I can recall all sorts of tricks being used. They had a filibuster --

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): We were good teachers.

Mr Callahan: You certainly were. And then when you get into government, you suddenly change all the principles and everything's got to be done tout de suite and the hell with democracy. Hearing from the public no longer is important; it's an irritant.

I note that the Minister of Labour is not here to hear these comments.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm taking notes for him.

Mr Callahan: I see, okay. He's interested in getting this bill through quickly. I think the people of this province elected us and paid us to give deep and careful consideration to each and every piece of legislation that comes through this House. They didn't ask us to rush things through. They didn't ask us to try to get things done so we could get out of here.

We are employed by the public, we are public servants; therefore, rules that have been brought in by this government in terms of limiting debate really are doing a disservice to the taxpayer indirectly, because the taxpayers' representative, who has been given a sacred trust to come down here, is not given full opportunity to debate the merits of each piece of legislation.

We've already seen with this legislation, in some of the small debate that's taken place, there have been some reconsiderations by the government.

At a time when, in my riding -- and I'm sure my riding mirrors ridings throughout this province -- people are losing their homes, are losing their jobs, are searching for jobs, are desperate, the government should really be addressing the issue of how we get these people back to work. How do we improve the economy? How do we create an atmosphere where investment will be attracted and will prosper?

Instead of doing that, we endlessly see matters such as Bill 80 coming to the attention of this House. Bill 80: At a time when 25% of the construction industry employees are out of work, we're tinkering with a piece of legislation that I would suggest is going to do nothing but cause unrest among the international unions and the local unions. It's also going to create a scenario where disputes will be settled by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has enough to do. You don't want to back it up to Lake Ontario, like you've done with the Human Rights Commission and with several other administrative and quasi-judicial bodies that are supposed to serve the needs of Ontarians, by putting too much emphasis on regulation.

Surely, the unions up to this point have been able to settle their own disputes and have been able to deal with the issues themselves. Why do they need the intervention of government?

However, going back to the issue at hand, the question of the time allocation motion, which, for the purposes of those people who may have just tuned in or may be watching the Parliament or the Legislature for the first time, a time allocation motion is really the government saying, "Opposition, you've got so much time to debate this, and at the point in time that we have decided you're not to go beyond, the vote will be called."

I think any fairminded person who's watching this debate in the Legislature would say to themselves: "That doesn't seem right. That seems to be terribly unfair. That means that my member, whom I've sent to Queen's Park to stand up for me in the Legislature, is in fact being told that he or she does not have any more time than the big, big government decides they can have."

I thought that type of conduct went out with communism disappearing in eastern Europe. I thought it went out with totalitarianism. I thought democracy stood for the right to have freedom of speech, which has been preserved over the years by people giving their lives and spilling their blood in order to ensure that we have that freedom.

Yet this government has, for the fourth time since we have returned, which was a very brief time ago, invoked what in effect is closure. It's not called closure, but it is closure. It's an execution move that in fact says that the members of this Legislature cannot speak beyond what the government wants them to speak.

If I were sitting out there as a elector and my member of the Legislature was down here and that type of conduct was being either countenanced, as is the case with government members, or being imposed upon the member in the opposition that I had elected, I would be quite unhappy. In fact, I would be unhappy to the extent that I would feel democracy no longer reigned free and clear in this province; that in fact this government, with its large majority, is attempting to crush any opportunity to debate bills.

1600

I suggest to the Legislature that if there's one significant hallmark of a democratic society and of a Legislature or Parliament, it's the right to speak. We are given a privilege to speak in this House where we can say anything -- hopefully, we use it responsibly -- and we cannot be sued for what we say if it turns out that it's not true. That's a privilege. That privilege was given to us so that we could have freedom of debate in this House and express our views in a free and open fashion.

What good is that right if the government of the day is able to invoke time allocation, or closure, and has done it four times? That's unprecedented, I would think. I don't think any government, the Conservative government, our government, ever invoked that type of operation. I can remember when we were in government that the discussions would be long about the issue of whether we should invoke time allocation. I think to the letter, every member of the caucus, we said: "No, we don't agree with that. That's not democratic."

I can remember times that we sat here and the opposition of the day, the New Democratic Party in opposition, and the Conservative Party, used to bring in some of the wildest tricks to avoid having to debate the bill, to avoid having to have the bill brought in so that we could get on with the business of the day, and they thought it was just marvellous. They get over on that side and suddenly they have decided that the opportunities to speak are not important any more, that the important issue is that we get our business done and get out of here so we can go and relax, that the Legislature can be adjourned and they can go back to their ridings.

Hopefully, when they go back to their ridings, they'll have to account to the people in their ridings as to why they stood as co-conspirators with the government in terms of supporting four time allocation motions.

Before we leave this chamber for the Christmas break, I suspect this government will probably hit an all-time high. They will go down in the Guinness Book of Records, if there is one for political moves, in terms of the number of times they've done it, because I suspect this fourth opportunity to bring in time allocation will be doubled before we leave here. I think there will be four more time allocation motions brought in, because that's the way the New Democratic Party government does it. "If you don't agree with us, hit the road."

We've seen that demonstrated within their own party. We've seen members like Mr Hansen -- I don't have his riding available -- being taken out of the position of his Chairman's job because he spoke out against his government. He had the audacity to speak out against his government on an issue which was important to him, because he comes from a riding, I believe, where the tobacco bill is important. In any event, perhaps I've got the issue wrong, but whatever the issue was, he was standing up for the people in his community, and as a result of speaking out against this government, he lost his Chairman's job.

We had several other instances of that, of ministers who have been removed from their portfolios because they disagreed with the government. That is something that I'm sure any fairminded person out there who has elected members of the Legislature can understand. That is not the way you work, not the way you operate.

Are not this time allocation motion and these changes of the rules to allow this government to impose its will on the opposition just an extension of that unfair practice of not allowing people to speak, to effectively represent the people who have elected them to the Legislature? If there's one purpose of being down here, and particularly for people who come long distances and perhaps live far from their homes, where they can't go home every night -- I would say that if they're not exercising the right to speak and are not agreeing and fighting for the right of the opposition and every member of this Legislature to speak freely on behalf of their constituents, then they're doing a disservice to their constituents. They are breaching the public trust that they were given when they were elected to the office of the Legislature of Ontario.

It's bothersome. It's troubling. It certainly gives me a bad feeling every time I see a time allocation motion being moved by this government, and particularly, as I've said, and I don't want to repeat myself, with the number of times they have has done it. It seems almost as though: "We'll give you one chance around the chamber. That's it. Then you're cut off. Then we want to call the vote. We want to get on with the business."

I can agree that governments should not be harassed, should not be delayed, that they should be able to order the public business and get on with the public business, but that's not what's happening here.

We're seeing this almost becoming an epidemic arrangement whereby the government imposes its will on the members of the opposition whose sworn duty is to ensure that bills are given full and fair consideration to ensure that those bills are the best possible bills that can encompass the policy that has been put forward by the government.

We're not for one minute saying that the government cannot govern. We're not for one minute saying that the government cannot bring forth policy, because that's its job. We may not agree with their policy, but we want to make certain that the policy they bring forward is going to be engendered in the legislation in such a way that it will be clear so that it can be interpreted by a judge or an administrative tribunal. We want to make certain the rights of individuals that are to be protected under that legislation are going to be effectively protected.

When we do things in haste as human beings and when we're forced, with our backs against the wall, to consider bills or to debate bills or to attempt to understand them and to get the message across, or to hear from the public for that matter, it becomes very much more difficult to do that when you have these types of application of time allocation. It's like anything else that human beings do: If you do it in a rush and in haste, you usually wind up with an imperfect product.

I wanted to involve myself in this debate to specifically deal with the question of time allocation. I find it odious. I find it to be a deviation from what I consider to be just and right, and I wish to thank the House for listening while I participated in this matter.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd like to speak to the resolution that was put forward by Mr Charlton today regarding the time allocation. I'm extremely disappointed that this time allocation has come forward today, a time allocation that is going to see presentations limited to 20 minutes. I think that time is most unfair.

We have indicated to the speakers in the past two weeks that they will have 30 minutes, and they have had 30 minutes to make their presentations. We had indicated to speakers for the next two weeks that they would also have 30 minutes, and for us to arbitrarily -- I shouldn't say us, but for the government to arbitrarily now decide that the remaining speakers only have 20 whereas the original first two weeks of speakers had 30, I think certainly is most unfair, for the government to be changing the rules midway through the debate and discussion.

I'm concerned as well because what I see happening here is what happened when the bill was originally introduced. We heard from hundreds and hundreds of people throughout the province that there had been absolutely no consultation prior to the introduction of Bill 80. The only individuals the Minister of Labour had consulted with prior to the introduction of Bill 80 were those very few individuals who were in favour of Bill 80, but he had not bothered to have any discussion or give any warning whatsoever to the almost 85% or more of those individuals who are opposed to Bill 80.

I believe what's going to happen here now is that it's going to be: "Hurry up, folks. Yes, we will listen to you, but do you know what? We're not going to listen to what you're actually saying. We're not going to incorporate any of the changes into the amendments that we're bringing forward." The whole thing is just a sham. The entire thing is just a farce. That's the way and that's the manner in which this bill was introduced.

There was no serious debate. There was no serious consultation. Never did the minister bring both sides together and determine how the issue could be resolved. He arbitrarily brought in legislation which was going to appease a very small group of dissidents.

1610

I am surprised this government is not going to remove entirely Bill 80 from the legislative agenda. The minister must be aware of the widespread opposition to this legislation, because we have received numerous written, verbal, faxed and oral representations regarding this on a daily basis from hundreds of people, yet we are going ahead with Bill 80, which as far as most of the people in this province are concerned is a bill which meets only the personal agenda of the Minister of Labour.

There has never been any demonstrated need for this legislation. Indeed, we are hearing that on a daily basis: Why Bill 80? The minister has never, ever been able to provide a very thorough answer, or any answer whatsoever, other than to say there have been some problems. I would suggest to you that what we have here is an attempt by a minister to pay back a debt to a chosen few in this province. We have a bill here that is the personal agenda of the minister.

I just want to say at this particular point that I can give assurance to the union people who are going to be impacted by this legislation that if our party had been in power, we would never, ever have introduced a bill such as Bill 80, which is going to interfere in the internal affairs of unions in this province. I say, "Shame," to the minister. In fact, I am going to have something further to say on that issue just a little later.

We would have provided them with the opportunity in the construction industry to proceed along the path that they are proceeding, because there has been tremendous stability in this province. Unfortunately, there is an indication that Bill 80, which is for a select few, and I stress a select few, will and can contribute to chaos.

I am surprised that the Minister of Labour or this government would even suggest going ahead with this bill if we take a look at what happened yesterday. We had people banging, trying to get in the Legislature because of the social contract process. Here we have a process which really has been as unfair as the social contract process, a process which has not involved all of the players.

Why is this government so determined to antagonize union members throughout this province, especially when a majority of the people in this province who are going to be impacted are opposed to this legislation? They are not acting in the best interests of the people in this province. This bill does not address the best interests of the people in this province. It will only contribute to further chaos, such as the chaos we saw yesterday outside this House. It will contribute to further uncertainty, and that is a situation we are going to be facing. I would suggest to this government that it needs to focus on jobs and not job destruction, as it presently is.

I want to read to you from some of the people who have spoken against this legislation.

I want to read first from a letter I received from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, from Tom Keagan, the assistant business manager, Local 804, where he says:

"The chaos, bitterness and hate that will result from this bill will run deep and remain long after the NDP labour government ceases to be the government of this province. It is sad that the legacy of the province's first labour government will be that it helped decimate the building trades labour movement in this province."

That's what people are saying about this bill.

I read to you a letter from Jerry Wilson, the president of the Waterloo, Wellington, Dufferin and Grey Building and Construction Trades Council in Kitchener, and it reads:

"Your explanation of the bill and the reasoning for its introduction is just not correct. Local unions or their elected officials in Ontario are not being dictated to, pressured or interfered with by their international parent union in any way whatsoever.

"We strongly urge withdrawal of Bill 80 and urge you to initiate" further "consultation. This bill in its present form is destructive."

I read now from a Bill 80 discussion paper, a brief that was presented by the Canadian Federation of Labour, Ontario Council, November 1992. It says here:

"In his statement to the Legislature, Labour minister Bob Mackenzie correctly indicated that Ontario is no stranger to legislative intervention in this industry. What he neglected to mention is that Bill 80, far from being in the tradition of promoting stability, threatens to dismantle the real accomplishments of the previous amendments. Fragmentation, rivalry and loss of business confidence are the likely fruits of this latest initiative."

I go on to read from the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. This letter is from Dennis Males, the international representative. He indicates here:

"Why then would your government, Mr Premier, ignore their wishes to maintain the conditions that they" -- meaning the construction industry -- "fought for for over 100 years? We, the construction trades in Ontario, have shown our democracy by waiting to see the delegates' wishes expressed in the open and for all to see, yet it seems you are determined to listen to the backroom dissidents and others that seem to have gotten your ear. They are in the vast minority."

I read here from Larry O'Neill, also the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, who says, and he supports what I said originally:

"Not enough consultation before Bill 80 was introduced, and the overwhelming support opposing Bill 80 at this convention proved that Mr Mackenzie was right. He told us that we need a stronger labour movement and a strong united construction building trades movement. In my opinion, Bill 80 will divide the construction building trades. We need laws that reflect the needs of workers in Ontario, and this is not one. I don't feel that you should let this small group of people divide us and destroy what has taken over 100 years to achieve.

"Bill 80: I feel that it is full of misconceptions and untruths."

Here's a letter from William Nicholls to the Premier. He is with the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Ontario Provincial Council, and he writes:

"Mr Premier, in closing I wish to reiterate Bill 80 is not legislation for the betterment of the unionized construction worker in Ontario, but will only damage in essence what harmony exists today. It is not only appalling with the disregard of a consultation process prior to the Bill 80 first reading, but more damaging is a government getting into the constitutions of our organizations by way of legislation. This issue continues to split and create turmoil within the labour union movement. If the best interest of the construction worker is to be exercised," then he goes ahead and asks that the minister truly listen to all the parties concerned.

I would suggest to him that's not going to happen. I don't think the legislation we have before us is going to change in any significant way. We've never seen this type of change yet from this government. We waste a lot of time sitting in committee, pretending that we are listening to people. We, as opposition, in the Conservative Party introduce our amendments, as do our colleagues in the Liberal Party, yet we just don't see our amendments adopted.

I read here from Ken Woods. He talks about the "clandestine manner in which the NDP have introduced Bill 80" and the "devastating and destabilizing effect that legislation, if passed, will have on the construction industry in this province."

1620

I just want to quote further from Mr Woods, because he certainly has made an excellent representation. He wrote me a letter on October 5, 1993, indicating that he's glad that someone is listening to the full argument on Bill 80 and that we are "not content to react to the rantings of a few dissidents, who obviously are crosswise with their own international union, can't effect changes within their organization, and would place the burden of fixing their alleged mistreatment in the hands of the OLRB."

He says: "Bill 80 perplexes our entire membership; we cannot fathom why the workers in one sector of the economy are being singled out for the discriminatory action envisaged by Bill 80.

"If passed into law, Bill 80 would in effect override the building trades constitutions, remove all stability from the construction industry, and place the burden of sorting out matters previously taken care of by the application of those constitutions in the hands of the OLRB."

He goes on to say: "Therein lies one of our many concerns regarding Bill 80. What prompts a government to take such a totalitarian stance against one segment of the trade union movement? How many building trades local unions have had their jurisdictions altered, changed or removed in an arbitrary manner in the past five years, 10 years, 20 years, for that matter? What wrongs is the proposed Bill 80 attempting to right? Where are the examples?

"Quite frankly, Mr Chairman and members, we suggest the minister has not been given examples or substantive proof to warrant such a draconian intrusion into the democratically formed constitutions of the building trades unions."

These are the comments and he goes on to say, "Upon questioning, the minister has failed, and failed miserably, to provide the anti-Bill 80 side concrete examples of such alleged abuses." He's referring to the abuses of trusteeships, supervision or interference with local unions.

This is where I want to quote from the law, because in my introduction I talked about the government meddling in the internal affairs of unions. I indicated that that was certainly not something that the Progressive Conservative Party would ever do.

I want to take a look again at the submission that was made by Mr Woods, the international vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He sent us a copy of a Supreme Court of Ontario decision relative to the application of some dissident members of the IBEW against disciplinary action taken as the result of a decision rendered by the IBEW Canadian vice-president as the result of charges preferred against certain officers of a local union by other officers of the same local. I ask you to listen.

"In refusing the application to issue an injunction against the decision of the vice-president, Mr Justice Reid said at page 2: 'Courts as a rule refrain from interfering in the affairs of unions, or for that matter, of other organizations where an appeal or equivalent alternative remedy exists.'"

He goes on to say at page 6: "'It is now accepted by courts, particularly those called upon to exercise a supervisory role, that in general the internal problems of unions should be settled internally. If the courts were too ready to intervene in the internal affairs of unions, they would, in my opinion, demonstrate an inappropriate disrespect for the union movement and all that it has achieved.'

"If the courts are reluctant to interfere in a union's internal affairs," if they indicate that this would show an inappropriate disrespect for the union movement and all that it has achieved, why does this government want to get involved? Why do they want to become Big Brother and dictate what goes on within the internal affairs of unions? I think that is a very important statement, because the government seems to be quite willing to tread where the courts refuse to go.

I conclude from Mr Woods's presentation when he says, "Bill 80 is the most ill-conceived, biased, unworkable, totalitarian attack on the trade union movement ever brought forward in the free world. We hope we have convinced you that Bill 80 has no place in a democratic society."

I hope that the NDP government, which has always professed to be the brothers and sisters of the union movement, has carefully taken a look at the information, the presentations that have been made by unions and members throughout this province, because a vast majority of them, at least 85% or more, are totally, totally opposed to Bill 80 and all that it wishes to do. I would suggest to this government, if it hasn't listened, that it does listen.

I can indicate to you that I have letters here with more mention as to why the government should not proceed. I have here a letter from the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Ontario Provincial Council. It's from William Nicholls and it's to the Premier and he says here, "Most importantly," and he refers to this bill, "labour-management relations will not be as they are known today, but creating an open battlefield towards a labour relations nightmare." He mentions that at the October 24, 1992, Provincial Building and Construction Trades convention in Kingston the delegates from the convention supported the resolution to oppose Bill 80.

I have a letter here from W.T. Densmore from the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, who is opposed to Bill 80 and who has written me on October 22 asking if he could please appear before the committee. Unfortunately, now this individual and his group will not have 30 minutes to make their presentation. They will be denied equal time, the 30 minutes that the individuals last week had. Although I hope that we will accommodate this group, they will only have 20 minutes to make their presentations.

I had a request here that came, written on November 19, that indicates that they want to appear before the committee. This is from Local 700 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers. They are also opposed to the legislation.

I would suggest there are people in this province who just now have learned that the government and the minister are intent to push this legislation through, not concerned whatsoever about the impact of the legislation, the possibility that it can create chaos, the fact that it will interfere in the internal matters of unions. They are just now asking if they cannot please make submissions.

I would suggest that this government should have continued with the committee after the new year in January and February. This is an important piece of legislation. It is important that all presenters have at least 30 minutes to make their case. In fairness, that is what they should have been entitled to.

Now we see this government suddenly introducing a time allocation motion and saying: "You know what? We really don't care. We didn't care when we introduced Bill 80. We didn't consult with both sides, and we're simply going to go ahead with the bill as it is. Whether or not we listen any more, it will have no impact whatsoever on the eventual outcome, and we're not going to make any changes at all."

1630

Here's a letter from Mr James Phair, the general vice-president, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, and he says:

"If Bill 80 becomes law in its present form you will virtually render the internationals ineffective if in fact an illegal strike were ever to occur. Without stable bargaining structures, the construction industry as we know it today, the stability we know today, will be set back 20 years. The industry will once again be in utter chaos. The resulting instability will not help produce one union job for our members. It will, however, produce an opening for the so-called merit shop."

I have a letter from the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council, John Marchildon, indicating unconditional opposition to Bill 80 in its entirety.

Of course, I have a letter here from Joseph Maloney, the assistant to the executive secretary, the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, who again goes on record as indicating that there has been inadequate consultation and that they are opposed to the legislation. Again, they are concerned about the chaos that can result from the legislation.

Here is a letter from Mr Robert Belleville, director of Canadian affairs, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Orleans, Ontario. He says: "I cannot and will not agree with the direction Mr Ward is attempting to lead your government. This international association has served our Ontario local unions well for over 100 years. We in this province have been allowed to govern our own affairs free from abuse and intimidation from our parent international. Make no mistake about this."

The final letter I will read is from Jerry Wilson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, November 4, 1993. He writes to Bob Rae: "It puzzles me why such anti-labour legislation would have such a high priority when your government has so many other more important challenges to deal with." That's the note I would like to end on.

This government is pursuing its own personal agenda, the agenda of the Minister of Labour, and that is to push through Bill 80. They don't care that the majority of people, 85% at least, are opposed to the legislation. They just listen to the special interest groups, as they do on so many other occasions. I don't know why you wish to antagonize the union members throughout this province.

I would support the last presentation and ask you, when there are so many challenges in this province, especially the challenge of job creation, why would you focus your attention, your time, my attention, my time, the time and the energy of people across this province, on an issue that deals only with interference in the internal workings of unions in this province and which is not going to make the lives of the people in this province any better by its passage? In fact, it will contribute, as many have said, to chaos.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): What we'll be doing is starting off with a bit of background, and then I think we'll be doing probably a challenge to the previous speaker because of what's been going on.

First of all, the minister has stated quite openly that when he was in opposition as a critic, for 12 years he's heard from the construction industry about some of the problems that have been out there.

On June 25, 1992, Bill 80 was introduced as a compendium to Bill 40 to try to bring greater fairness to the workplace here in the province of Ontario.

On October 4, 1993, we had second reading, and at that time the minister tabled some proposed revisions. Attached to that was the idea that we would eliminate the section on successorship, and since that time we've had greater support for Bill 80.

Part of the committee hearing process is that we went into the subcommittee and agreed to public hearings, and what we did was agree to hear as many people as possible. On our schedule, as we sit right now, we have 37 groups scheduled and we have something like 15 presenters on a waiting list that we've agreed to.

I must say that most of the people on the list who are opposed to Bill 80 are paid by the parent international union, and the presenters who are in support of Bill 80 are the elected officials from the locals. So the locals are coming out now and saying they're fully in support. One of the groups who presented yesterday in committee, the sheet metal workers, when they originally had their vote it was something like 7 to 3 opposed to Bill 80, and since we've dropped the successorship they've taken it to vote and it's now 10 locals to 1.

Mr Mahoney: It was 7 to 4.

Mr Cooper: It was 7 to 4 originally? My apologies. Thank you. It's now 10 locals to 1 in support of Bill 80.

Since we've tabled Bill 80, there are a lot more people coming out in support of Bill 80. What happened was, because of the setup of the construction industry, there were a lot of locals that were afraid that if they came out publicly in support that unilaterally the international would step in and take over trusteeship of the union. We have had several presentations of exactly these things happening. As the member for Waterloo North states, the presenters have come in and talked about chaos in the industry. I think the chaos that would happen would be coming about if we didn't proceed with Bill 80.

Our idea is to get it through committee as soon as possible and get it so that it's legislation so that these construction workers can get back to work and do what they're paid to do rather than having the internal fighting.

As for a lot of the comments about government interference, I might remind the members that on February 2, 1983, the not quite then former Premier of the province of Ontario, David Peterson, tabled an amendment to the Ontario Labour Relations Act which had to do with trusteeship. So even in 1983 there were indications that there were problems in the construction industry.

Also, when you talk about government interference, there are a lot of things that the government has done in the past, and it wasn't through this union, where they've talked about province-wide bargaining and accreditation. These were former Tory and Liberal governments that did this. That wasn't called interference at that time; it was just fixing problems that were out there.

One of the allegations from the member for Waterloo North was from Ken Woods, who was one of our presenters. In a presentation yesterday in committee from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, it stated:

"There have been allegations made before this committee by our international vice-president, Ken Woods, which cannot go unanswered.

"Let's be specific, the Greenbelt gas pumping station. IVP Woods sent me a letter dated December 5, 1988, in which he refers to problems on the job site and he informed our local that the job site was under international supervision and that his representative Mackenzie had been assigned to ensure that the supervision was carried out. This was the first time that Local 353 had received any correspondence from the international office or had any discussion whatsoever with the international office concerning the job site.

"In August 1988, the Toronto United Association Local 46 pipefitters lost their jurisdiction over this job site to the UA Kitchener local. The contractor...is based in the Kitchener area and wanted to use their employees from Kitchener to work on this project. The project was primarily pipefitters' work, and because of this, Local 353 members did not arrive on the site until September 1988. Yet in his letter to the international president, he implies that Local 353 electricians have caused the project to be three months behind schedule. We had not even been on the job site for three months, yet we were to blame.

"The supervision on the job site was so incompetent that they were not using proper explosionproof fittings...." All right. Let's get to the heart of it here.

"The contractor wanted to use his employees from Kitchener to do the work which rightfully belongs to our members. The ICI provincial construction agreement protects the work in a local union's jurisdiction by only allowing an electrical contractor to bring in one worker from another local and all the other workers must be hired from the home local union, in this case, Local 353.

"At this point, I want to bring to your attention that international vice-president Woods, international representative Mackenzie and company representative Eric Hardman are all members of Local union 804, Kitchener, which benefited by taking the work away from Local 353. Further, the owner of Nicholls Radtke, Bill Nicholls, is also from Kitchener area.

1640

"We were astounded and insulted to find out from international vice-president Woods' presentation before this committee that the basis for his actions were as a result of Mackenzie's report dated December 3, 1988, and a weekend conversation with the owner Bill Nicholls. You will note that Mackenzie's report is based on allegations contained in an alleged daily journal that was kept by the company representative, Eric Hardman....

"Neither the members on the job site nor the elected officers of local union 353 were ever given the opportunity to respond to these allegations before the international vice-president took the job site away from our members."

When you look at some of the presentations, I regret that the member for Waterloo North wasn't in committee yesterday. I'm sure she had other, more pressing matters. But the presenters who came in yesterday almost all unanimously spoke in favour of Bill 80.

One thing I might mention is some of the things that we've been doing in committee. When we were first approached to go into committee, Mr Joe Maloney, assistant to the executive secretary of the Canadian Building and Construction Trades Department, had been lobbying almost every member he could get in to see against Bill 80. We agreed that being as he had done so much work, we would give him the opportunity. Being as he had proposed revisions of his own to Bill 80, we would allow him an hour presentation. The government agreed to do this because he had done so much work and we thought it would be a good foundation leading into the committee hearings to hear, in general, what the construction trades unions that were opposed to Bill 80 had to say. So we allowed them the hour.

Some of the other things that have been going on: I know yesterday we had three internationals and the Sheet Metal Workers come together and give a joint presentation. When you talk about us cutting it down from 30 minutes to 20 minutes, I know we've talked to a number of the people who have been sitting in the committee waiting for their turn to present. We've asked them if they can make joint presentations, because a lot of times they're just reiterating what the other local unions are saying. If they combined their time and got 40 minutes, they would have plenty of time to do the presentation and allow time for questions and answers from each of the opposition and government members.

We've done everything to try and facilitate the process in the committee. The thing is that everybody has been saying, whether it be the employers, the people who are paid by the international unions or the people who are in support of Bill 80, that the best thing to do is either get this bill passed or take it right off the table.

When we're talking about the bill, basically what we're doing is talking about shared bargaining rights. In most cases, the local unions and the international parents are sharing the bargaining rights, but in the constitution there is sometimes written that the international union has exclusive bargaining rights.

What we're saying here is that rather than unilateral contracts being imposed on local unions, as has been done in the past in some cases -- very few cases, but there have been some cases -- they get shared bargaining rights so that the local union does have some input on its contracts.

The next one is the alteration of local jurisdiction. As we've seen, there have been trusteeships imposed on locals without them having any say, and it's usually for pretty flimsy excuses. A lot of times it's been said that dissidents are in support of Bill 80. The reason they get the name "dissident" is usually because they've come out against the international trade union parent because of something that's been affected in their local unions. So they want a greater share. They're just looking for fairness here.

The other one is on the benefit plans. I think everybody can agree -- and the New Democrats especially have fought long and hard -- that anybody who has benefit plans should be having joint trusteeship over those plans. All we're saying is that Ontario construction unions should have joint trusteeship and should have equal representation on these.

When we're talking about the legislation, all we're doing is talking about balance and fairness. We're not talking about upsetting the balance out in the construction industry, saying that the local union has so much more power. All we're saying is that we have to have just cause. I don't think anybody can argue against just cause, and that's what the construction trades have been coming in and saying. They just want that before an international parent can come in and unilaterally do something that affects their local jurisdiction, it would have to show just cause.

I think that on fairness this bill is adequate in addressing a lot of the concerns. I know once we dropped the successorship section, a lot more people have come out and endorsed Bill 80. I know that at the last conference the member for Waterloo North was talking about, when they held the vote and they voted against Bill 80, they were still voting on the fact that they were talking about the original Bill 80, not the proposed revised bill that the minister has already stated at second reading time.

I think that we've done fairness. We've been fair in committee hearings. The point is that we should get this out of committee and back into the House and get it passed for third reading so that in the construction trades there won't be this big separation between the local unions and the international parent.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate, the member for Mississauga West.

Interjection: Oh, oh.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, oh is right.

Applause.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much, my fan from Mississauga.

I guess there are a number of things I want to touch on today. The first thing I want to do, though, is say to you and to the people in the construction industry that I really think this is kind of a sad day, that we have to debate what in effect is closure.

I know there's a difference between time allocation and closure but ultimately, as we head towards the countdown towards the end of this session, we've got another time allocation motion -- we call them time allocation motions du jour -- the fourth one in the last six sessional days, which clearly shows that the government House leader is unable to work with the ministers to get the agenda moving forward and to work with the House leaders on this side. The only way this government is able to get legislation through is by ramming it all down our throats.

I have done a little bit of research, and just to give you an example, people should understand that time allocation follows on the heels of the rule changes that the House leader and others brought into this place that have reduced the opportunity for the opposition to question bills, to deal with issues and to really perform what is its right and its obligation as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Since this government has come to power, in 1991 we had two filed time allocation motions, one on Bill 4 and rent control and the other on Bill 143, two very difficult bills, I might add, bills that a lot of people had concerns about throughout the province, issues that municipalities were concerned about, that housing advocate groups were concerned about, and this government just simply decided to bring in time allocation. They'd heard enough, they didn't care if there was any more objection to the bill. They wanted to shut it down.

That was the inauguration of time allocation, and the government took to it a little bit like a duck to water. They seemed to find that: "Boy, this is fun. We can actually shut these guys up through time allocation." I guess it took them a year or so to kind of get their feet on the ground. They were dealing with a lot of scandals and internal problems. But once they got the good ship NDP going down the waterway, they decided, "Now we can get down to doing things our way," and that's what we're facing.

We had two in 1991. In 1992, they rolled up their sleeves with Bill 40, the most contentious piece of labour legislation in the history of this province. With people outraged, with billboard campaigns going on around the province, with the business community in fear for its future, with investment drying up, what did they do? Time allocation. "We've heard enough," said the Minister of Labour in the government. "We don't want to hear any more. We're going to simply close down the opposition."

Then we had Bill 150, labour-sponsored venture capital, venture capital money for new projects as long as it's endorsed by your local union -- interesting stuff -- time allocation one more time. Then we had this one and it is a beauty. This is the latest tactic of the NDP government. It's called omnibus legislation, where they bring a whole pile of supposedly related bills and put them all under one bill.

We had time allocation on a bill called the Advocacy Act, Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110, all of them once again dealing with issues that were very important to people out there: important to the disabled, important to the terminally ill, important to the legal community, important to the health care sector. But they had heard enough. This government decided, in its rewriting of democratic principles, that it had heard enough and it was simply going to file another time allocation, the third one of that session, followed by Bill 121, another rent control bill.

By the way, the rent control bills that were time-allocated were also retroactive. To help with that, what this means is that the minute they are passed at third reading and the minute the Lieutenant Governor gives assent, they become law back to the day they were introduced. I do not understand, when retroactivity is a part of the legislation, why this government feels it's necessary to cut off debate.

1650

They know they have a majority. We know they have a majority. We know at the end of the day that unless we in the opposition and the public that are opposed to a piece of legislation are successful in getting it through their heads that we need changes to a bill, they're going to win the day. Why not at least allow the democratic process to take place? Where does this government get off redefining everything that goes on in Parliament?

Madam Speaker, this is supposed to be a hallowed institution dedicated to democratic principles and free speech. While we in opposition can basically get up with impunity and immunity and say almost what we want, as long as it doesn't offend you and the rules of parliamentary process, the same cannot be said for people outside of this place; the same cannot be said for the public in general. We are their custodians. We're only here for a short time, even those of us who have served in this place for 10, 15, 20 years. In the overall perspective of democracy, that's a short time. We are here to defend the rights of minority groups, of dissidents.

Let me tell you, I hear people coming before committees objecting to being called dissidents. A dissident, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, stems from "disagreement." A dissident is someone "disagreeing in opinion, character; at variance, different. One who disagrees." I don't understand why they object to that. I consider myself a dissident when it comes to this legislation. According to this definition in the dictionary, I am very much a dissident and a strong dissident, against this government. I don't find that offensive.

Mr Hope: I see you have a dictionary.

Mr Mahoney: I take some pride in the fact that I can disagree with the member opposite and with the minister and play the role of dissident, notwithstanding the fact that the government has a hammer that it continues to bring down on our heads every time it gets into a situation where there's an outcry from the public, every time it gets into a situation where the dissidents dare raise their heads, where the dissidents in this province dare say to the Minister of Labour: "We think you're wrong, sir. We think you're intruding into an area where you do not belong."

When the dissidents dare say that, what do you do? Time allocation. This minister's not the only one. The Health minister has done it.

Mr Hope: Remember that quote.

Mr Mahoney: The rent regulations: the Housing minister -- I know you're looking forward to the day when I'm sitting over there, I say to the member. You'll love to wrap that quote up if you're here, which I doubt, and throw it back at me, and I will certainly look forward to that day happening. I happen to feel there's a pretty good chance of that, but you never know, because the reality is, in this democracy, as I said, we all live on borrowed time in here, and so it should be.

We have an obligation, we have a responsibility, to ensure that people have their say and to stop governing by decree and governing by force.

The rent regulation bill, Bill 121 in 1992, is another example where the government was fed up. They didn't want to hear from landlords any more; there was enough of that. "These guys have had their say." They had a problem identified in Toronto and they decided to bring in some legislation for the province of Toronto so they could solve the problem for everybody. But they didn't want to hear from the dissidents, so they shut it down.

Madam Speaker, this is a list. You can see that in 1991 there were two; it doubled to four in 1992. Let's talk about 1993: Bill 100, Bill 8, Bills 80, 47, 48, and 164. We have six now. We're going up in increments. You've got another year to go. Next year, if this pattern holds true, there will be eight bills. Why don't you just tell them what they are right now, tell us what they are, and do it? Why are you wasting our time?

In 1993, regulated health professions, Bill 100. Bill 8, casinos. Imagine. Imagine shutting down debate on a bill that will change the landscape and the future and the morality and the direction and everything about this province without allowing full debate on it. Imagine that.

I know why they had to do it. To get the thing through, they had to expropriate a bunch of land from some people, so they had to give the local municipality in Windsor the authority to strip people of their property rights. They had to do it there on a deadline. That is really democratic, that is really fair, by a government that -- boy, oh boy, I'd like to see this House leader and this Labour minister on this side if our government ever tried to do something like that: the howls, the outrage.

The minister's laughing. You have to agree it would be something to watch opposition leader Bob Rae leading the charge up University Avenue, placard in hand, drummer beside him, demanding David Peterson's resignation. Whoa. The sanctimonious approach would be just unfathomable. It would be entertaining. Instead of having the labour unions climbing over the barricades calling for your heads, you'd have them all behind you saying, "You're right, boy. We believe in you, Bob," and you'd be charging this place. It would be just quite remarkable.

Bill 80, the one we're debating today, is another one. Photo-radar, another one: time allocation. They've heard enough.

We know they're short of cash. We know the credit rating has just been downgraded one more time, the third time since they've been in office. We know that the bond rating agencies have come out and said, "We recognize there's a recession, but this government and this Finance minister have done nothing to get their act together." We know that.

They need cash, so they bring in photo-radar. They wrap it up in a safety package and tell us all that it's going to save all our lives and everything's wonderful. "We don't really care about the money. It's a secondary issue. By the way, we're going to invoke time allocation. We're going to shut down debate."

People from all over the province want to talk about this because while it might not affect them on Highway 16 in Ottawa right now, it sure as heck will in a matter of a couple of months. I say to the member from Ottawa, tell your people, get those governors on the cars, because Big Brother is coming to Ottawa. Big Brother is coming to a place near you, Madam Speaker.

They bring in time allocation because they need the money and they don't want to hear the objections any more.

The social contract? The social contract is probably the classic. For a New Democratic Party to introduce a -- never mind the fact that it was necessary to get some government constraint into the picture. That is a given. For this party to destroy collective bargaining rights is really remarkable. If opposition leader Rae and the gaggle of caucus members would have been outraged over gambling casinos, imagine the cry at any attempt to take away, well, to take away what is clearly a God-given right -- if not government-given, a society-given right -- of collective bargaining in the labour movement.

You wonder why the labour movements out there are confused. They've got Gerard and some of those people walking out of the convention down the street because they're tired of this. They don't know what to do any more. "Why is Bob doing this to us? Why is he continuing to undermine the significance and the relevance of the labour movement in the province of Ontario?" They're confused.

You've driven a wedge right down the centre of the public sector unions and the private sector unions. In fact, what you'll be heading towards will be two separate organizations. Unions that are funded by people who work in the public sector will have their own federation of labour, and unions in the private sector will have one separate. If that's what you wanted, you're succeeding. If that's what you wanted -- I see the member going, yes. If that's what you wanted, it's working.

1700

Look what you're doing in Bill 80. You're interfering in democratic trade unionism. Why don't you just bring in a bill that says the OFL must split down the middle? Why don't you get Gord Wilson in here and say, "Gordie, we want to separate the public sector tax-funded unions" -- where any employee who works for the taxpayer gets one set of rules -- "from the private sector"?

You don't mind interfering in constitutions in the construction trade labour movement. Why don't you have the guts to stand up and tell guys like Leo Gerard and Buzz Hargrove, some of those former supporters, financially, anyway -- why don't you have the courage to stand up and tell them that what you really want to do is redraw the map of trade labour support? I don't know why. I don't know what the agenda is yet, but it will come to me, and it will come to them. The message is clear, if that's what you want to do.

The social contract was done through time allocation: "We don't want to hear any more. We have heard enough. We've heard enough from the unions." We had them up here -- remember, Madam Speaker? -- yelling, calling the Premier a traitor. Do you remember that? I remember that. It was a tragic day, actually, for any Premier, I don't care what party; to have people who were formerly not only your stalwarts but the people who put you in office sitting in the gallery calling you traitors must have been a difficult day for members of the NDP caucus. But I tell you, it's only the first of many, because they will not forget.

They're confused now; they don't know where to go. I admit that. The rank and file do. You see, where I think you make your mistake, whether it's Bill 80 or any bill, is that the rank and file in the construction industry are concerned about one thing and one thing only: their jobs. I don't see anything in Bill 80 or any of the labour bills you've introduced that secures a job for one worker in the province of Ontario, not one.

When I went out of here last night -- every dog has his day, and yesterday we had the group into the committee that was in support of Bill 80. It was nice, finally, to see them. I don't know why they've been hiding. They tell me there's fear of retribution and all of this stuff.

Mr Hope: They're dissidents.

Mr Mahoney: They are. They're dissidents because they disagree. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a dissident. They are dissidents. Mind you, I find that some of the objections are quite remarkable.

George Ward went on and on in his presentation about some guy flying his girlfriend all over Europe and using the union jet and all of this stuff. Those kinds of things nobody condones, if indeed that's going on. But I understand that the Department of Justice in the United States is investigating that. Hopefully, if all those allegations -- Mr Ward put them in the form of being facts. I hope, for George's sake, that he hasn't put himself -- he doesn't enjoy the immunity that we enjoy. I hope he didn't put himself in a position of being charged with libel. I really do; that would be unfortunate. He put out very, very strong allegations: misappropriation of funds, some $800 million from the pension fund. If all of that is true, I assume the Department of Justice will get to the bottom of it.

This Minister of Labour will remember Harold Banks well. I remember the probe that run him out of this country; I remember it well. There were all kinds of allegations that proved to be correct. There was a corrupt union leader. To suggest that there are no corrupt union leaders in any scene, be it a national, be it a local, be it an international, would be naïve. But to suggest that we need to bring in legislation that throws their constitution out the door, I don't understand that. I don't understand where any government feels --

Mr Hope: Allow dissidents to speak up.

Mr Mahoney: Well, dissidents can speak up. They have been. They spoke up at the committee. You heard George. He put it forward. Interesting.

There are all kinds of opportunities in this great country. I would support and stand here and say to the members in Local 30 who are here and say to the members and all the sheet metal people who are in support of this and say to the minister that I would object strongly right alongside him about anybody, be it an international vice-president or be it a local bargaining agent -- anybody -- misappropriating funds, using a constitution to be heavy-handed against union members. I would object to that. But there are ways to resolve those problems.

When it comes to misappropriation of funds, we took care of Harold Banks in this country, without a doubt. There are ways to deal with that without bringing in labour legislation and taking all of this time getting people all upset. I had calls today from Calgary upset about what's going on in this government. It is not necessary.

I had a young man yesterday, I started to tell you -- I went out of here --

By the way, before I leave this, Bill 164, auto insurance, also time allocation. Since the government came in, we've got 12 bills where time allocation has been filed in three years. We've had closure: none in 1991; in 1992 there were four motions of closure, two of which were successful, two of which the Speaker rejected and showed good judgement in allowing the debate to continue; and in 1993 we had two more motions of closure, one of which was successful and one of which was rejected.

It's become a tool of the norm for the NDP government and this House leader to say, "We're going to listen to you for so long and then to heck with you."

Why did I even bother to attend the subcommittee of the resources committee to discuss scheduling deputations? I agreed. We had over 50 people, groups on both sides of the issue, who wanted to come and talk to the committee. We sat in the subcommittee and said, in full agreement with members of the NDP caucus -- the Conservative critic was there, I was there, and we agreed we would hear all of these people, that we would give them 30 minutes, and I said I would agree to any of them combining their presentations in an attempt to shorten the list, but not forcing them to do that, that it should be voluntary. That was agreed to. Why did you bother agreeing?

I've got to tell you, some of the time allocation bills you brought in I must admit I wasn't overly surprised at. I was really surprised and disappointed when I came out of committee last night to walk into my office, because I couldn't make the House leaders meeting, to see sitting on my desk, Mr Speaker, a time allocation motion for Bill 80.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Mr Speaker was sitting on your desk?

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker wasn't sitting on my desk. The time allocation motion was sitting on my desk. I was shocked. I really was, I say to the House leader. I couldn't believe it. I thought we had an understanding that this bill -- and I understand that this bill is also retroactive. I stand to be corrected but it was said in committee yesterday. I note the minister is verifying that. It was said in committee yesterday. If indeed it is retroactive, what is the problem?

You're going to win. The dissidents know that. You're going to win. Why do you have to humiliate them? Why do you have to say to them: "We don't care what you're going to say. We've heard it all before."

I said to the Minister of Labour, he better go find Joe Duffy. You know where Joe is right now? He's on the ceiling somewhere, he is so upset. You're going to have to scrape him off. Joe Duffy's an NDPer. He's a supporter of the NDP. He can't believe it. He's a long-time friend, I think, of the Labour minister. He had enough trouble believing you would actually bring in Bill 80; he is just astounded that you would shut it down before he's even had a chance to say anything in committee. He just doesn't understand what has happened to the democratic principles in this government and in this party.

There's no reason for you to do this. You could have gone through the balance of this session, had the hearings and allowed the people to have their say. You could have at least made them feel that they were part of the democratic process. You could have done it and you could have brought it back in the next session. You could have had some debate in here and it would have carried. You've got the votes. I don't think you're planning an election in January. Tell me, please, that you are, but I don't think so. I don't understand why it is. It doesn't make any sense.

1710

If the Minister of Labour has some obligation to somebody in the labour movement that he made a deal with years ago when he was the critic for the NDP in opposition, I understand that. But surely to goodness you didn't put a time restriction of December 6 on that obligation. Surely to goodness, if that person was on the other side of this issue, he wouldn't want you shutting him down. Surely to goodness, whoever it is you owe this debt to is a democrat and he would understand that due process and democratic rights have to be respected.

They would understand if you said to them: "The committee is meeting and hearing from deputations. There's over 50 of them approved and there's 12 or 14 of them on a waiting list. We want to let them have their say and we want to let them have their day in the sun. We might bring in some amendments."

The minister knows that Joe Maloney and his people put forward some very reasoned amendments. The parliamentary assistant said they were going to consider them. I really hope they do. I don't even know if there's time to do that. Is there time to do that and debate those amendments? Is there time to answer questions? If the staff and the ministry have questions about the amendments, is there time to do that?

We're here on November 25. We're talking about this bill coming into this place for a vote by December 6, failing which it will be deemed to have been reported to this place and it'll be all over. This is just unbelievable. It's not a money bill. You don't need it like you need photo-radar to solve your financial woes. This is a bill, for better or for worse, that interferes in union democracy.

You could take an argument, I grant you, on either side of that issue. I respect the people who came before the committee yesterday and had very strong differences with things I have said in this place and with the position I've taken as the Labour critic for the Liberal Party. I respect their right to do that. I would never shut them down and stop them from having their day even though they managed, and the Chair allowed every one of them to continue their deputation to the point where there was no time left for questions, no opportunities for me to ask questions, to make statements, to rebut, to do anything.

I was shut down yesterday. I can live with that because I knew I would have an opportunity to express my concerns today and I know I will always, regardless of this government, have the opportunity, in the real world, to express my concerns and my objections to the measures that this government has put in place that totally defy democratic reason and principle.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): They call it democracy.

Mr Mahoney: Well, they don't understand it any more. There isn't time, unfortunately. Again one of the changes they made is to limit time on debates. This is going to carry. This is done. It's retroactive. I would like to have gone into some discussion.

I do want to touch on one thing. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot, the parliamentary assistant, made reference to David Peterson's private member's bill in 1983. If David Peterson, as a member of the opposition in 1983, had a problem in his riding and decided to respond to it by introducing a private member's bill, that is clearly the free and democratic process that he had a right to follow. I also enjoy those same privileges and I don't have to agree with him in 1983 or in 1993. But he has a right to do that and I would stand up and defend that right till the day I die, as would David. So don't throw that in my face, because what his problems were in 1983 were his problems and we have ours today.

In the 10 seconds left, I just want to say to those people in support of this bill that I wish you well, because I fear for the future and the ability of this government to make changes in the future through regulations, through other legislation. This indeed could be the thin edge of the wedge that destroys democratic principles in the labour movement.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have not entered into the debate with regard to these closure motions prior to today and only do so very, very briefly, because my colleague from Willowdale also wants to make a few remarks in a few moments.

I want to say that I'm intrigued somewhat by this motion. I'm also somewhat reflective of why this is happening in the Ontario Legislature today. I was trying to look at it in a more global sense or in a larger sense than just dealing with Bill 80, because it's my feeling that over the past, I don't know, maybe five years, eight years, our committees have become unmanageable. Our legislative process seems to be becoming more unmanageable as we go along.

Therefore, the government House leader is trying a new technique. He's trying a new strategy in dealing with a number of government bills. I must say I don't blame him totally in terms of doing that, because he's got a certain amount of government business he's got to get through. You have to stop somewhere along the line and deal with the business, have your votes and be done with it. That's got to happen.

One of the problems I see however, Mr Speaker, is that in some ways governments, and I'm not just particularly referring to this government, have followed in this tradition. Committees, which you as Speaker now do not have the pleasure or the burden of attending from time to time, have in my view, in dealing with bills, become somewhat irrelevant. That has evolved from the practice of ministers not ingratiating themselves with attendance at committee hearings.

It doesn't matter which bill I might have been talking about over the last eight years, under the NDP government or the Liberal government, I get the distinct feeling, when I walk into a committee and I hear some person or group that has put a brief together, that it's really falling on deaf ears. We're just going through a process of allowing people to say that they were before the committee, that they complained and that nothing happened.

The problem here is that ministers are not attending the committees. So you have people who put themselves out, come to the committee, carefully put a brief together, and it doesn't fall on the ears of the person who has the power to make the changes in the committee structure, which is really what the committee hearings are supposed to be all about, the public hearings. You're supposed to come in and be able to influence the minister and make some amendments, or influence him to make some amendments.

The flip side for the ministers has been that as the committee process and as our participatory democratic system has built up, more and more groups have come in and spouted or espoused or said the same thing.

I've got to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I really do wish this government had brought in a closure motion on Bill 40. Bill 40 was the other labour law which this government brought forward, I believe a year and a half ago. I was an unfortunate member of the committee which heard public briefs on that.

1720

I understand why the minister of the day wasn't attending those committee hearings, because we were hearing essentially the same brief from one local union to another local union or local group as we travelled across this province. It was so bad that we would have the exact same wording from one city to the other city. You'd have a local that would come in, read off this brief, no matter how accurate or inaccurate or whatever. Quite frankly, I found it an insult to my intelligence. I found it an insult to the committee that people would organize themselves in such a fashion to dun the committee with the same stuff from city to city, from group to group. You weren't really hearing new information, so it makes it kind of boring for the members. I understand why the ministers would find it boring as well.

The whole system seems to have broken down, and I'm not sure that the consultation process is real any more. I think that we as legislators should seek another kind of committee process so that we can hear people who really have something valid to say to a committee.

That may require discipline on the part of all members, both in opposition and in government, to meet, to discuss who has something to say, perhaps to require written briefs before somebody comes before the committee. Maybe it should also require that a minister is required to come in front of the committee to hear whatever the consensus is that the most important briefs are for him or her to hear vis-à-vis any piece of legislation.

I say with some empathy towards the government House leader that when he's trying to bring a conclusion to a process which seems ever to expand in certain cases in certain bills, the problem we as legislators are facing is that we are not hearing new information when we sit night after night, because the groups are somewhat schooled in what they're coming to say to us.

As I said, on Bill 40 we had an OFL representative who dogged around from city to city and -- it's conjecture on my part -- probably gave the local group the brief that it was to read in front of the committee. Therefore, we went around from area to area not really learning very much new or really very much original in terms of that particular process.

It requires some kind of restructuring, of having a minister there at least for part of the hearings. I would like to see some restructuring in terms of the standing orders thrusting more responsibility on the members of the committee to maybe whittle down the briefs to the best dozen or the best half-dozen. The ministry would then be required to come in and listen to those half-dozen or dozen particular briefs so that the person who had the influence would hear the public input.

I'm chagrined that we have to keep moving. I think this is the fourth, or we're going to have five closure motions. It's never been done in this Legislature, but I believe that we should see this as an opportunity to look at our committee structure and say, "Yes, we've got to do something different there in order to avoid this kind of action by this government or any action in the future."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Carleton for his contribution and invite any further debate. The member for Downsview.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thought you were going to move to my good friend across the way, but I guess not. I'll take a very short while and put some of my comments on the record in this regard.

We're debating closure. Closure essentially means that you're going to limit the amount of debate or the number of speakers on any given bill or anything that this Legislature is in the process of doing. As a New Democrat, it's my sense that I probably speak for most New Democrats when I say that this is one of the things that probably makes me uneasiest of all. There's implicit in the action the idea that you're somehow limiting people's democratic rights to speak to important matters of governance.

Each and every time I'm asked to do something like this, I have to go away and reconcile that within myself. But when I look at the rationale and what it is that's happening in this Legislature, really what it comes down to above all else is the refusal of the opposition parties to recognize the legitimate right of this party and of this government to govern. That's what it essentially comes down to.

It's true we're trying to do a lot and we are doing a lot in terms of legislative changes and in terms of new initiatives and new ideas and so on. But when you look at some of the history in this place in terms of the different parties being able to introduce legislation and to carry legislation through this House for a final approval -- you look at the 1980s.

In the 1980s, you had the Conservatives, they governed, and you had the Liberals, they governed. They split the decade. The Conservatives governed for roughly the first five years of that decade and the Liberals governed for the subsequent five years. They were able to push through this chamber roughly 30 bills per session each party. We, on the other hand, during our term have only been able to manage somewhere in the neighbourhood of 13 to 15 per session, less than half of what they were able to do.

To recap very briefly, the Conservatives and Liberals were able to push through this chamber roughly 30 bills a session. Every time they met, they were able to move 30 pieces of legislation each. The Conservatives were able to do that during the first part of the 1980s; the Liberals were able to do that during the second part of the 1980s. We have been only able to manage between 13 and 15, less than half.

How have they achieved this? How have they done this? Beneath it all, Mr Speaker, I know as well as you know that they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of this government, and that's fine. That's fine, I guess to some degree, and they can go ahead and do that. But that's essentially what's happened.

My Liberal friend, the member for Mississauga West, talked at length about how we've done this and done this and done this and how we've moved closure and closure and how we've cut people off and cut people off. But the reality is that when you look at all of those pieces of legislation, save and except for one bill, the photo-radar bill, save and except for that one single bill, we have debated each and every legislation on average, when you take the legislation that the Conservatives and Liberals introduced during their reign of terror and the legislation that we introduced during our government, you will find that on average during our government, we have debated legislation two and a half times longer than they ever allowed.

Now, you ask yourself, how could this possibly be when they complain and complain and complain? How can it be that we, during our term of office, are debating legislation for two and a half times as long as they are?

I'll tell you how they're doing it. When I was in high school and subsequently in university and I was taught the legislative process and the parliamentary process, whether it be at the provincial level or at the federal level, I was taught that bills are introduced for first reading and you generally introduce them at that time. The substantive debate takes place during second reading, and that's fine and that's fair game. During third reading, it's basically a formality; there is rarely ever any debate during the third reading process and during the third reading exercise. Okay, that's fine too.

1730

But when you look at the bills that come before this House in terms of debate during our time in government, you will find that most bills, yes, are introduced for first reading; yes, we go through a very exhaustive and extensive second reading debate, but then they come back for third reading and what happens? Well, they do the same thing again. They take third reading, what should otherwise and traditionally be a formality, and they go through the whole debate all over again.

They go and they go and they go. They're a little like Eveready, and that's fine. If it's something new and it's intelligent, a substantive contribution to the debate, that's fine, but when you take the first speech you ever gave on a bill and you go -- we're talking about Bill 80. I'm not going to be concerned too much with the actual content of the bill, but this was introduced for first reading June 25, 1992, almost a year and a half ago. I tell you, this bill has a lot of walking to do before it's actually proclaimed in law. Almost a year and a half later we're still talking about whether or not we're going to move on this bill. That's fine, that's fair game, and I understand that.

But I understand that they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of this government. They don't accept it. They don't accept the democratic will of the people of Ontario. I guess, to some degree, it's their right. It doesn't make it fair; it doesn't make it reasonable. But they'll use that, and they'll blow it up and blow it up and blow it up.

Yes, it's held up for second reading, extensive debate. Yes, it'll get held up again in third reading, and yes, they'll hold it up and stall and stagger it out until someone comes along and says, "Folks, you took your first speech and you re-read it; you took your second speech and you re-read it; and then on your third go, you took your first speech and you're re-reading it again for the third time." Then somebody comes along and says: "Hang on a minute now. We heard that one, we heard that one, we dealt with that one, we dealt with it again. So now let's move on."

Almost a year and a half later Bill 80 is still stuck, it's wedged in the legislative process, in the legislative exercise, and today we're eating up an awful lot of time talking about what? Talking about whether or not we're going to stop talking and get moving with some substantive action on a very important initiative, on a very important bill.

I have to tell you that given all of that, I still feel uncomfortable. I still feel uneasy when my friends, my Conservative friends and my Liberal friends, stand up in this place and say, "My gosh, here you go again, you're going to limit debate, you're going to close, you're shutting down the doors to Ontarians," and all the rest of it. There's nothing that could make me feel more uneasy than being accused of doing things like that.

But then I look at the amount of time: 30 bills per session during the Conservative reign of terror; 30 bills per session during the Liberal reign of terror. What are we able to muster? Less than half that amount.

I'll tell you something else, another statistic that perhaps my good friends across the way are not that familiar with. I say again that there's nothing that could make me feel more uneasy than talking to a motion of closure, but even with closure they would find that we debate legislation today far more than it's ever been debated under the Liberals and under the Conservatives. On average, that's exactly what takes place.

I sit here sometimes and I say to myself: "Gosh, I want to get things done. We really need to move this piece of legislation. We need to get this program going because we need to get people back to work. We need to get that money out there. We need to get that project started." Nothing infuriated me more than when the leader of the Conservative Party had the gall, when Ontario is probably facing one of the absolutely worst economic devastations in recent memory -- in case you haven't heard, listen up -- one of the worst economic recessions ever, and I'm not going to blame it on Conservative GST, I'm going to blame it on Conservative free trade --

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's important that we listen to the member for Yorkview's speech about democracy, but I think it's also important that we have a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Would the table check to determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview may continue his speech.

Mr Perruzza: I was just about to say that during one of the worst economic times this province has faced in recent memory and in a very long time, nothing incensed me more than when we came into this chamber and we were talking about important matters, matters that would get Ontario moving again, matters that would get people working again, the leader of the third party, the Conservative Party, stood in his place day after day after day, reading out all of the little lakes and streams and rivers in the province of Ontario. You know what? We have that in Hansard, Little Creek Lake and Big Creek Lake --

Mr Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: All of those lakes were read in one day, not day after day after day.

The Speaker: The member knows he does not have a point of privilege, though probably of some interest to someone. The member for Downsview has the floor.

Mr Perruzza: Day after day after day he tied up the business of the House. You gave us a geography lesson. We could have gone to any geography book and gotten the names of the lakes and rivers and streams all by our lonesome, but you tied up the business of the House. You tied up the business of government to read every single, little lake, stream and river in the province. I'm sure you didn't cover them all; I'm sure there are many more. If concessions were made, they just would have kept going and going and going. They're like the battery that never quits. In fact, the batteries quit, but they never do.

The other thing that really infuriates me is when they come into this chamber and what do they do? Simple. They start moving adjournment of the House, adjournments of the debate. You know what happens when that happens. You're asked to call for a vote. They stand up. They request a 30-minute bell and there's another 30 minutes down the drain. So not only do they bring those stall tactics --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm trying to listen to my colleague. He's right in front of me and I can't hear him because of the heckling. You know how much heckling bothers me, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Yes, I do. The member for Downsview has the floor.

Mr Perruzza: So you come into this place and they find every stall tactic you could possibly imagine, but even after all that, even after tying up the business of the House and reading from -- the leader of the Conservative Party, who should know better --

Mr Harnick: You seem to be so worried about us; speak to the House leader about it.

Mr Perruzza: -- ties up the business of the House day after day after day; even after all that, I still feel uneasy about voting for closure.

As I said, you check the record and you look at this bill, you look at Bill 80, and you count the pages. Even if you're a real slow reader, you count the pages. There's one, there's two, there's three, there's four pages, and that's counting the cover. You got to be a real slow reader. Over a year and a half: introduced for first reading June 25, 1992. If you count the months, it's almost a year and a half.

1740

Mr Harnick: Why didn't you call it for a year and a half?

Mr Perruzza: I tell you, this has still got a long way to go before it's proclaimed into law, so if you're a real slow reader and you want to take your time with this bill --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Not only is the member for Willowdale heckling in a loud manner and in a way that is offensive to the current speaker and myself; the language that he's using in this place, Mr Speaker, is offensive and I ask you to ask him to withdraw.

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview may take his seat. Indeed, interjections are out of order. The member for Willowdale did use an unparliamentary term and I know that he would like to withdraw that remark and allow the member for Downsview to continue with his speech.

Mr Harnick: I will withdraw that remark if it was offensive to the Speaker.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I'm going to conclude and I'm not going to tie up more time, but I had this rage so that I felt I had to get up. As I said, I feel uneasy about voting for closure, because voting for closure creates the illusion that somehow you don't want to listen to people any more or you don't want to talk on something any more, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

I don't think I just speak for myself when I say that. I think I speak for a majority of New Democrats when I say that. That's why we belong to the party we belong to, because we believe in democratic rights and we believe in defending democratic rights. But when those democratic rights are just simply and completely and totally abused, when the minority would simply want to run roughshod over those rights, then I feel it's incumbent on the individual to stand his or her ground and say that enough is enough.

In summing up, I just want to recap this because I think it's important to get it on the record. During the 1980s, during the Conservative first-half reign of terror between 1980 and 1985, and then during the Liberal half of their reign of terror from 1985 to 1990, they were able to pass through this House roughly 30 bills per session. That's 30 bills per session. We have only been able to manage between 13 and 15, less than half.

When you look at the averages of the debates themselves on the actual bills, during the Conservative reign and during the Liberal reign that dominated the entire decade, you will find that. During our time in government, you will find that now, under the NDP government, we are debating legislation two and a half times longer than what was allowed by the Conservatives and what was allowed by the Liberals.

Interjections.

Mr Perruzza: Those are the facts. My Conservative and my Liberal opposition colleagues may not like to hear that. They may not like to listen to that.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to say that I've been so taken by the member for Downsview's argument that let's vote now.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Downsview may continue his speech.

Mr Perruzza: That infuriates me, because I know for a fact that my Conservative friends and my Liberal friends go out into their communities and meet with their constituents. You know what they say? They say exactly the same thing that my honourable friend from Mississauga, the Liberal member from Mississauga, said here today. "They're limiting debate. They don't want us to talk any more because this is no good. They just want to ram it through and they want to get it through the Legislature and they want it proclaimed as fast as they can. They don't want any more talk." Nothing could be further from the truth when you examine the facts.

Mr Harnick: I've just listened with great interest to the member for Downsview talking about how upset he is about having to speak to another time allocation motion. One of the things that he said, and I'm not going to use the phrase that he was misleading the House, but he indicated that this bill was first called for first reading on June 25, 1992. He said that this bill has been lingering in this Legislature since then and we wouldn't let it pass.

Let me tell you -- and I'm not going to allege that he's misleading the House, because that would not be parliamentary -- that the bill wasn't called for second reading until October 4, 1993. What was happening between October 4, 1993, and back on June 25, 1992? You know what was happening? Complete inactivity on the government side. Then the government comes in and brings in a bill on October 4, 1993, has second reading debate and then the hammer comes down. The hammer comes down while they were lingering -- or malingering, I should say -- doing absolutely nothing about calling this bill.

I say to you, and I'm not going to allege that my friend from Downsview misled anyone, but certainly --

The Speaker: No. Order. The member for Willowdale will know that he cannot do indirectly that which he is prevented from doing directly.

Mr Harnick: The member for Downsview was very quick to blame everyone else for the inability of this government to pass its legislation, but the fact is that this legislation sat doing nothing for almost a year and a half. Then, when they finally called it for second reading, we had three days of second reading. It's now gone out to committee. There are 35 groups that still wish to give evidence and be deponents before the committee, most of whom are opposed to the bill, and what does the government do? They bring down the hammer.

These new rules that we now have been operating under for two years are new rules that were brought in when the gun was put to the head of the opposition. But I remember the member from Windsor, the former House leader, said, "Don't worry, we're very seldom going to use time allocation." This is the 12th time in less than two years that time allocation has been brought in.

Mr Mahoney: Fourth time in six days.

Mr Harnick: My friend the member for Mississauga West says this is the fourth time in six days. I can tell him there's another one coming next week.

But the fact of the matter is that we have to ask ourselves why the Conservative Party when it governed this province for 42 years was able to pass 30 pieces of legislation in every sitting, why the Liberals in their short term in office were able to do the same, and why the NDP hasn't been able to do it in its short term in government.

The NDP blames everybody else. They blame the federal government for their difficulties, they blame the Liberals, they blame the Tories. They have a persecution complex. The reason that they can't --

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In answering the question, we were a reasonable opposition.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

1750

Mr Harnick: I have no idea what that interjection meant.

We have to start to ask ourselves, why is this government unable to do what either the Conservative governments were able to do and what, very briefly, the Liberal government was able to do? The answer is quite clear: It's because this government is positively inept. They couldn't even bring in a motion to extend the sittings till midnight without screwing it up. It's very clear. The rules say you can do it for eight days in December, and they tried to do it for two days in November and six days in December.

That's precisely why they bring in closure motions. They want to get this stuff through and they want to get out of here, because they don't want people to dwell on the fact that our credit rating has dropped again. They don't want people to dwell on the fact that they've brought in increased fees for literally everything the people of Ontario do: increased fees for land transfer tax, for probate, for corporate filing.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You're losing it, Charles.

Mr Harnick: The member from Windsor indicates that I'm losing it. It's interesting because two years ago, when we were debating his rule changes, he assured us, the honourable member from Windsor, that very seldom would time allocation be brought in. This is the 12th time in less than two years and it's the fourth time in the last two weeks.

It really is amazing that after being here and being the government for three years, the New Democratic Party still can't figure out how to govern. They still can't figure out how to sit down at a House leaders' meeting and make the necessary arrangements and consensus and agreement to get the pieces of legislation they want through this Legislature. The only way they can do it is by the hammer, and they do it by the hammer because they want out of here.

They don't want people to talk about the deficits that they've run up. They don't want people to talk about the fact that you have to pay six years' worth of driver's licence fees today in order to get your licence and they want to collect all the money now. They don't want to talk about photo-radar, which is going to be the biggest pilfering of the pockets of the motorists in Ontario.

The other interesting thing about their time allocation motions -- and auto insurance was a perfect example. They brought down the hammer on auto insurance. We had to have that through this Legislature last spring. In fact, they brought in their time allocation motion and they rushed it through the Legislature -- it still isn't even in force. The regulations? I don't even think they're written yet. It's the same thing with employment equity.

We keep going to this committee and we keep hearing about "This has to get done," and I know that's the next time allocation motion. I'm sure the House leader's got it drafted and the ink is probably still drying, but the fact is they're not even ready to proclaim the piece of legislation. At least let the committees go through the clause-by-clause process. At least on Bill 80 let everyone come who wants to speak and give them the 30 minutes they were promised, not cut it back to 20 minutes and rush them in and out.

This is the way a government operates when people are opposed to its legislation, when it wants to hide and when it doesn't want to present its record. This government has stooped so low that the Premier has taken a part-time job as a columnist with the Toronto Star to try to get his message across. Even at that, this party is still at 6% in the polls. I say, rather than time allocation, just call an election and let's see what the people of Ontario really want.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Willowdale for his contribution to the debate and invite further debate. The member for Brantford.

Hon Brad Ward (Minister without Portfolio in Finance): It's a pleasure to participate in this debate for the short time that I have. I won't go into the need to pass this bill, this five-page bill, half French -- four-and-a-half pages really -- and the amount of debate that we've had, section by section etc.

I want to point out the good things the bill will bring to the people of Ontario, particularly in the trades industry, in the construction industry: shared bargaining rights in the non-industrial, commercial, institutional sectors, a right currently enjoyed in the ICI sector; much greater control over the resolution of jurisdictional issues within their trade; greater protection from interference or reprisals from their parents and proportionate control over their benefit plans. What is wrong with that?

I have some letters of support written to me by various locals in the trades.

The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 30: "I am writing to ask that you do everything possible to support Bill 80. This piece of legislation will ensure that the democratic rights of building tradesmen in Ontario are respected by our international union. It is long overdue. James Moffatt, Business Manager, Local 30, Sheet Metal Workers."

The London and District Building and Construction Trades Council, of which we have a Tory member: "Very recently all of our executive board was nominated and acclaimed to its former positions. It would be therefore appropriate to again comment on our support of the bill, Bill 80. Although we cannot understand any legitimate reason to deny Ontario workers these rights in Bill 80, the remainder of the bill remains intact." They're talking about some of the proposals we're removing." It'll still leave us with some basis of autonomy within our current structures and the ability to exist and work with our parent organizations."

That is signed by Jim McKinnon, John Haggis, John Payne, business representative, operating engineers, Local 793 -- John Haggis, business manager, Bricklayers Local 5, Jim McKinnon, president and business manager, Labourers' Local 1059 -- out of the London area.

The Committee of Ontario Construction Locals in Support of Bill 80: "Bill 80 is essential to ensuring that members of the Ontario construction locals gain basic rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association that are enjoyed by other union memberships and indeed by society at large."

"The proposed amendments will protect the develop of democracy in the construction unions by providing legislative checks and balances against the absolute unchecked power of the international executive based in the United States. In this sense the amendments, including Bill 8, constitute some important internal union housecleaning that will not affect collective bargaining patterns or any other aspect of labour-management relations."

That's signed by a number of trade unionists, including International Union of Bricklayers, Local 5 once again; International Union of Bricklayers, Local 10 out of Kingston; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 out of Toronto; Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 247 at Kingston; Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 597 of Oshawa; Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 out of Sarnia; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 Ontario-wide; Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference Ontario-wide; IBEW Local 1788, Ontario Hydro; London and District Building and Construction Trades Council, and again, Labourers' International Local 1059.

From the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW Local Union 1788: "Members voted unanimously at union meetings across the province to support Bill 80 in its entirety, despite the constant bombardment of anti-Bill 80 rhetoric and misinformation from our IBEW International office. Labour-management relations must improve in the province of Ontario if we are to meet the competitive challenge of a rapidly changing economy. Bill 80 is a step in the right direction. Workers must feel they are part of the process. They must have confidence that the voice of labour is indeed the voice of the worker."

Finally, from IBEW Local Union 353, they write: "This may not please those who now hold unlimited power in the US over our union, but believe me, those who live and work here in Ontario are very glad to see Bill 80. It should be really called a declaration of rights for Ontario construction workers. Please support it."

They have my support, these construction trade unionists. All across Ontario, they support Bill 80. They would support what we're trying to do today by invoking closure so that this bill can have the appropriate readings and be proclaimed in law as soon as possible.

I think there's someone else who wants to talk on our side, and I'll give him that opportunity.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Brantford and recognize the member for Cambridge.

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): I just rise to make one point. I have heard so much today in terms of the limiting of debate for opposition members. Yet, when one examines the record, the record is very clear. One analyses the length of time that was given to debate of major issues in the past, and the record will show that under this government there are two and a half times as much debate on a given issue as under the previous administration. So as opposition members stand up one after another and rail against the government, never in this province has there been such significant debate.

The second point I would make is, if indeed they were simply to get on with the business of the House and not spend so much time complaining day after day after day, we could increase the amount of time for vigorous debate, just by that simple action on the part of the opposition by saying: "We're not going to waste time by simply having stalling tactics. We will talk to the issues. This government has been indeed generous. On the other hand, this opposition has been the most obstructionist that has ever existed in this House.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 17, a resolution which stands in his name, time allocation with respect to Bill 80.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1802 to 1817.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 17, a resolution which stands in his name, time allocation with respect to Bill 80. All those in favour of Mr Charlton's resolution should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's resolution should please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Brown, Callahan, Cordiano, Elston, Harnick, Henderson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, Murphy, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sorbara, Sterling, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Speaker: The ayes being 60, the nays being 20, I declare the motion carried.

Does the government House leader have a business statement for next week?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the week of November 29.

On Monday, November 29, we will give committee of the whole consideration to casinos, Bill 8. As per a previous order of the House, the stacked divisions will be put, starting at 5 pm. Following the completion of those votes, we will give second and third reading consideration to all Pr bills and then return to committee of the whole to consider amendments to Bill 40, community economic development, and Bill 51, Simcoe county.

Government business for the remainder of the week will be announced pending further consultation with the opposition parties.

On Thursday, December 2, private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 39, a resolution standing in the name of Mrs Marland, and ballot item number 40, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Johnson.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1822.

25 novembre 1993